I’d assign value in order of sentience, consciousness, comprehension of the world, others and self. How intense do they experience the world? Can they feel pain and suffer? How social are they? Is it really like something to be that animal / does it have a subjective experience? Does it want to live?
Yes, we know every animal, even insects, feels pain and fear.
How social are they?
That depends a lot. Most felines and reptiles are not social, neither are sharks or hummingbirds. Canines, equines, bovines, chicken, ants, termites and bees are very social
Is it really like something to be that animal / does it have a subjective experience?
This question didn’t make much sense. Are you supposed to compare, say, how a jellyfish experiences life with an octopus?
Does it want to live?
Pretty much everything in this earth “wants” to live, including microbes. This “want” is not a right, however. No animals, not even humans, has any sort of “right” to live. Rights are a human invention.
Of those questions, seems only one actually leads to different answers (how social it is), and whatever comes out of the subjective experience one.
In my morale (and in the morale of many others) all humans are of equal value. I won’t claim to always act 100% morally. But the morale thing would always be to deem all humans equal.
That is the basis on why discrimination is considered bad. All humans are equal, simple as that.
Do you know why it is not the same for animals? Because animals are not all equal. You just confirmed, you don’t care about flies. You don’t deem flies equal. You don’t deem all animals equal.
So why do you deem the adult pig equal to the three years old child? Because of its mental capacity?
My (and many others’) morale does not make someone’s value dependant on their mental capacities.
A human with higher mental capacity is not of more value than a human with lower mental capacity.
I will repeat myself again: All humans are equal.
By making this distinction, you apparently deem a human with less mental capacity as of lesser value.
Do you honestly believe that a perfectly moral person would have a hard time deciding whether to give an donated heart to a sick 90 year old or to an otherwise healthy 30 year old? Doctors have to make decisions like these all the time.
If you think this somehow doesn’t count as a valid counterexample, please explain why.
All humans are of equal value.
Not all animals are of equal value. A cow is not of the same value as a fly and a fly is not the same value as a human.
Would you deem someone who swats a fly equal to a murderer? Probably not. Because the value of flies, if any, is irrelevant.
All humans, including vegans, deem animals as of lesser value.
You will never protect a fly to the same level that you protect a human.
There’s a distinction to be made, and to deem only humans to be of value, is one such distinction.
I’d assign value in order of sentience, consciousness, comprehension of the world, others and self. How intense do they experience the world? Can they feel pain and suffer? How social are they? Is it really like something to be that animal / does it have a subjective experience? Does it want to live?
Would you generally agree?
Hard to say for any animal.
Yes, we know every animal, even insects, feels pain and fear.
That depends a lot. Most felines and reptiles are not social, neither are sharks or hummingbirds. Canines, equines, bovines, chicken, ants, termites and bees are very social
This question didn’t make much sense. Are you supposed to compare, say, how a jellyfish experiences life with an octopus?
Pretty much everything in this earth “wants” to live, including microbes. This “want” is not a right, however. No animals, not even humans, has any sort of “right” to live. Rights are a human invention.
Of those questions, seems only one actually leads to different answers (how social it is), and whatever comes out of the subjective experience one.
Removed by mod
Everyone can choose their own moral values.
In my morale (and in the morale of many others) all humans are of equal value. I won’t claim to always act 100% morally. But the morale thing would always be to deem all humans equal.
That is the basis on why discrimination is considered bad. All humans are equal, simple as that.
Do you know why it is not the same for animals? Because animals are not all equal. You just confirmed, you don’t care about flies. You don’t deem flies equal. You don’t deem all animals equal.
So why do you deem the adult pig equal to the three years old child? Because of its mental capacity?
My (and many others’) morale does not make someone’s value dependant on their mental capacities.
A human with higher mental capacity is not of more value than a human with lower mental capacity.
I will repeat myself again: All humans are equal.
By making this distinction, you apparently deem a human with less mental capacity as of lesser value.
That is horrible. Your morale is horrible.
All humans are equal. Not all animals are.
Do you honestly believe that a perfectly moral person would have a hard time deciding whether to give an donated heart to a sick 90 year old or to an otherwise healthy 30 year old? Doctors have to make decisions like these all the time.
If you think this somehow doesn’t count as a valid counterexample, please explain why.