Are animal lives equal to humans'? II

[Lainemaa]

the previous thread reached 20 pages and has been archived. Please continue the discussion here.

The last five posts from the old thread:

this problem had happened 4 so long a lot of species of animal gone to extinction none other because of us human

it is the law of nature that only the strongest will survive but it doesn't mean human as the strongest or rather the most intelligent creature in this world can do anything to them if they're gone the one who will suffer are us human cuz it will break the great cycle

well good thing now a lot of people realized that and do whatever they can to prevent some animal extinction no offense but I think it's too late in maybe 10 or 20 years later we may not see a lot of animal that we know when we were a child isn't that sad?

outside the religion fact animal were exist before us human so at least we must show some respect to their existence mean we have no right to exploit them until they vanish for good
Im not a hypocrite we need animal for food,clothes,and all that thing that we need in daily life

the thing that I didn't understand is why hunt animal just 4 fun?why killed them just to make their head hanging on our wall?it just doesn't make any sense 4 me.....

well if U asked me whether animal life are equal to human life
i would say no but we have to respect every life in this world and not take their life just to fulfill our own selfish desire
Alright, Sorry, I overreacted. I didnt mean to call you stupid... just your opinion...err... but that is only my very subjective judgement so dont take it to serious. But anyway. My point is. I think that it is stupid to say that animals are here for our purpose, wasnt it enough to say that there're for the purpose of the environment? I mean, sure, we need meat and all, but I dont think that animals exist only becaus we should eat them. That is just a great thing that we humans realized that we could do to survive better. But I dont think that every animals on this planet has a purpose... and espacilly not a purpose to be eaten by humans. Becaus that is a purpose created by humans. I think that you should be, objectiv, when speaking about how animals are equal to humans or not. I mean, we can never say that they are equal, but we cant say that their only purpose is to serve as meat to us. Even if that is something that we can use them for.

Alright.

Well here, I'm coming from more of a religious point of view. I see it like this:

Animals here each have some sort of purpose, small or big. They all do something minor or something important that helps keep things in check, and if one of those species dies out then the balance shifts a little.

While I believe they're here for us to eat, they also are an important part of our ecosystem that, in many cases, can't be spared.

I agree that we can't say they're equal to human lives, but aren't they serving us? Everything that they've done and still do wouldn't be of much help if humans weren't here to enjoy it. Animals aren't smart enough to appreciate the same things that humans do. Because they help keep our ecosystem in check, we can live more comfortable lives.

The animals don't exactly do that. They just hunt for food when the ecosystem is balanced.

And when it's unbalanced, they just hunt for more food. Either way you slice it, animals don't really enjoy their lives like humans do. Therefore, humans get the full benefit of the animals that do everything for them.

Again, I'm coming from more of a religious viewpoint here. But I think that either way you see it, you can see that we rely on animals more than they rely on us and that we get more of the benefits than animals do.

There was a period of time when human lives were sometimes regarded as trash based on their social stats in the hierarchy of nobles and commoners. Actually you were less than a cattle if you were a girl born into a commoner's household. A noble of any varying age can just take you out for a joy ride if the influence of the particular noble was so strong rebellion meant death. Animal lives should differ from a human's because?? I think all life is precious be it a human, animals or even alien life forms.

One answer. No, they are not.

They are not sentient, tho truth be told, many humans are only on the fringe of sentience anyway.

I love my cats, I will miss them when they die. but they are not worth the life of anyone I know...or do not know.

[Soupnazi]

I believe that animals are on the higher end of nature, but humans are higher. Animals do not have the ability to reason (or atleast, on the level we do, from what I've seen), and have only their sense and instinct to go by. Though it's never right to be cruel to animals, I would sooner save a human from being hit by a bus than I would a dog.

[sataru y]

i think animals that are closely related to us like monkeys or dolphins with there ability to use common sense are closely equal but are not close enough to equal to save them instead of a human.

[Dracon]

I think that its completely absurd to start to separate human from other animals, sure we can do things that other can´t but that´s not the reason to start elevating us. Then there is the question does insects and other creatures similar to them counts as animal, or does this only mean the bigger creatures like mammals and fishes? But as we humans are animals we use other animals as food so the question is not simple.

Sorry if I don´t make any sense, as I´m just rambling.

[NineTailedNaruto9892]

this is a really good topic. speaking on terms of the environment, animals are better.hands down. everyday humans harm the environment alot. some animals help the environment. animals do not have reason AS FAR AS WE KNOW. soo this can pose a good arguement

[CheezMonster]

I'd trade the lives of a million animals for my own any day. But as long as it isn't necessary to do so, may as well not.

And by the way, livestock are pretty lucky if you think about it. They live in a predator free environment, with plenty of food, and are almost guaranteed to keep their species alive. Granted, its no longer survival of the fittest that determines who reproduces, but survival of "He who maketh the juiciest steaks." Hmm... I didn't think I could come with anything that sounds as twisted as that... oh well. :)

[Halfbaked1]

I'd trade the lives of a million animals for my own any day. But as long as it isn't necessary to do so, may as well not.

And by the way, livestock are pretty lucky if you think about it. They live in a predator free environment, with plenty of food, and are almost guaranteed to keep their species alive. Granted, its no longer survival of the fittest that determines who reproduces, but survival of "He who maketh the juiciest steaks." Hmm... I didn't think I could come with anything that sounds as twisted as that... oh well. :)

And here is an illustration of how my previous statement could be wrong, or maybe not. As to livestock having it good, try and think about living your entire life in a box, eating till you are fat and happy so that you can take a sledgehammer between the eyes for the people who raised you to eat. Dairy cows have it worse. hooked up to machines all their lives in cycles so that cold, impersonal machines can rip your bodily fluids out of you. Milk, it does a body good.

My point here is that though we are cruel, sadistic *expletive deleted*, we are smart enough to try and resist being put into situations of slavery. And certainly when that servitude can end in consumption by the species that has subjugated us. So animals are lower forms of life without the ability to conceive that they are gonna get their heads crushed by the same hands that have petted and cared for them.

But McDonalds is still okay, thats Kangaroo.

[Philonoist]

Maybe this has been said before, but I beleive this to be more understandable to us as humans...

There is little doubt that in nature humans are superior beings to most animals in almost every aspect, and above all animals in terms of intelligence. This has made use the dominant species, and for that to happen, others have had to die for our existence. These deaths you really cant blame on humans, you cant say that we should stop expanding because of the animals. Instead, you could say that it would upset the balance of things, that by expanding we not only hurt the animals, but in turn ourselves. Now that kind of killing, is something that is different based on the situation. If it is neccesary, then it is neccesary. But a villa out in the middle of the jungle and a private hotel beside it isn't really the perfect definition of neccesary.

On the other hand, cruelty towards animals should be witheld, and by now you should have noticed that my opinion differs on how the situation is presented, because it is causing harm to the animals. Because they feel pain, and that hurting them is evil. As humans we have a superior intellect and moral sense of being. Killing unnecessarily is wrong because it violates our snactity as human beings. We should be able to improve our world by defining it in a way that is right to ourselves. Humans are born with certain traits, and having a concious is one of them. Having respect for life is important as a way of showing our chracter as people.

[Burningled]

I believe that if we should say we shouldn't kill animals for a practical purpose, that is equivalent to saying eagles shouldn't hunt fish, or tigers shouldnt hunt prarie dogs. Predators eat prey, it's a simple fact of life. On the other hand, us killing for no good reason, simply for the joy of it, is a little twisted, but still dolphins and some species of apes do similar things. The only thing i find unforgivable is torture/cruelty to animals. That is causing large amounts of pointless suffering to animals in the world.

[Silky Daze]

If I have to choose between saving the life of my dog who and a person who I don't know, I'll choose to save the person. I'll be heartbroken over my dog, but I wouldn't regret it.

[AnatoliaFangirl]

I think animal lives are equal to humans in the sense that it is just as cruel to torture and hurt them as it is with a human being, in fact it might be even more crueler because some animals cannot defend themselves.

[Blu3]

I think, personally, that since animals contribute less to earth than humans do, humans lives are more important.

I mean that humans leave a larger footprint on the earth. Not that footprint is necessarilly good... but we still are more important to the earth, all tho i doubt we are more important to it's survival now...

Yes, I do believe that i am slightly concieted, and so is my worldview.

[Blu3]

That's not the point, and that's a whole different argument.

The point is that we do more. We create more, and therefore, we are more valuable. What do animals do with their lives? Eat, Sleep, Poop, and Mate.

What do humans do with their lives? The same, of course, but we also Make things, and leave art and such to show our footprint, to show that an advanced culture lived and had society on this planet we call earth.

[Carlosmaster]

I see a dog die the same way I see a human die, I have no particular feelings for any of them(Except, of course, my own circle. Family and friends).

So that we are better then animals, no and animals aren't better then us.
Why?
Because there are billions of humans and billions of animals, few dead every day where I live changes nothing.

To be easier to understand is this: I see life and I see death, life ends for everyone, it is inevitable, so overreacting to seeing it every time is just stupid IMO. I just, meh at it and think that in a few years I'll be joining the soil too and keep on with my life.

[Squares]

Strip a human of all their fancy gadgets, you've got an animal. Humans will do anything to survive. We've destroyed half this planet proving so. People just say humans have more value because we've created so much, but we've also destroy a lot too. Animals didn't cause global warming nor did they create a number of viruses and disease (many are man made).

We're equals. Animals haven't done anything. Humans created and destroyed things.

[SilentScream]

I believe animals lives are equal to the lives of humans, were all born on the same planet, they have independent minds. There are surplus of 6 billion people in the world, we can afford to lose a few, not all animals can.

[Quietknight]

Simply the answer is no. That being said, cruelty to animals should not be allowed. PETA is a joke of an organization as it goes beyond common sense though. We are meat eaters. Biological we are. The proper hunting and conservation is required to maintain a healthy species like deer or bear.

Animals have the basic right of not being abused. Other then that they are not equal to people until they know how to vote and build houses.

[Jman]

I highly disagree that a animal life is equal to a humans. I'm not saying thats its all right to hurt an animal but I dont think its right that "fluffy" has about the same rights as me.

I believe an animal..is an animal nothing more or nothing less. I believe it is soley on the owner to treat the animal how he/she wants it to be treated.

[dokidoki45]

I beg to differ. I think an animals life is just as important as a humans.
In fact if you think about it animals should actually have a higher ranking that us, because have you ever seen a dog for example, beating somone cuz they don't do something right or running a buisness unfairly or being the cause for global warming.
NO!!!
animals have done nothing to harm others (well, of course they bite and stuff but they don't know any better, but we know better and we still do these things).
If i had to choose whether to save the life of my cat or a random stranger, i'd choose my cat.

[youngflash]

I beg to differ. I think an animals life is just as important as a humans.
In fact if you think about it animals should actually have a higher ranking that us, because have you ever seen a dog for example, beating somone cuz they don't do something right or running a buisness unfairly or being the cause for global warming.
NO!!!
animals have done nothing to harm others (well, of course they bite and stuff but they don't know any better, but we know better and we still do these things).
If i had to choose whether to save the life of my cat or a random stranger, i'd choose my cat.


For some reason i cant say they are higher than us or equal to us...
but animals r crazy attack anyone they feel like they hunt down other animals.......at the same time where crazier we kill sometimes for the simplest reasons

The save a cat or a random stranger was very harsh it like saying i was on a skyscraper and the cat was in a tree and u would save its life instead of mine:skull:

[bleachlover20053]

I'd like to counter some of dokidoki's arguments

It is true that animals do not harm others based on intellectual level however they do attack and harm others. Animals will attack for various reasons, for mating, food, territory self defence but they also attack because one may annoy the animal. Humans have the ability to stop when they believe is necessary, however animals will do wither of the two. 1, they will stop once you are out of their "range" or 2. they will do their best to try and kill you. It is not because they know nothing but because of instinct, when they atack they attack to kill you.

As for global warming, the only thing to blame is humans, that is completely true. However, this event started before we were aware of it ever happening. That does not make it alright but because we are intellectuals, we are looking for solutions and have found many ways to cut back, such as refridgerators being modify to produce less harmful gases, looking for new solutions for energy crisis instead of depending on oil.

Physically, we, the homo sapiens are the weakest creatures on Earth. We are weak, we have no way to protect ourselves from the change in climate and by far no means in the ways to hunt. However, we survived because we are smarter, sure we cannot predict earthquake using our senses like animals but we make up for that with out intelligence. The one thing that makes the difference between the weakest and the most dominant is the intellect we have gathered in the last few thousand years. Like the saying goes, brains over brawn, and history has shown over and over that the statement was and is true.

Lastly, although it has nothing to do with the debate, I wish to point out that the two choices dokidoki made was purely biased. A choice between her cat, and a total stranger, one she is fond of and another that has no relation what so ever. If she was to make a fair judgement, she would have to say either her cat or someone whom she has good relations with such as siblings or a friend. In which case I doubt she will choose a cat, no matter how found she is to it, over a family or friend.

[wildstriker]

Somehow..., this topic make me feels indifferent, to think that it'd reach the 2nd thread just for this.

Well, I still stands that animal life (and actually any other life as well before human) is practically inferior compared to mankinds, because we're practically the 'de facto' ruler of universe.

[loveistragedy]

well technically we are all animals .....you don't know how many people i have met that refuse to believe that......we are merely a more advanced species of animal that any known species in existent so far.... i mean yea were on top of the food chain because of how intelligent and are ability to reason is ......so thats really all the thought i have really given this ....i mean maybe there is a species some where that is far superior than we are and to them we are nothing mre than animals

[Burningled]

IT depends on the situation the animal's life is in. If we're killing it for food, well that's the same as a lion killing it's prey is it not? So in that respect, they may be equal, but we're still hungry.

Or if we're hunting them for sport. I understand this is also slightly twisted, but species of monkey and dolphin do this as well, so we must assume they are equal to us.

However, torture to animals is unacceptable. It causes just as much suffering as us, so why shouldn't they be equal to us in that respect?

[NonExistence]

please excuse me for my extremely depressing comment to come that'll have you all yelling your heads off at me because it's just so pessimistic and un-agreeable.

with that out of the way: yes, animal lives are worth the same as human lives. they're all worthless. my views on life is that perception is reality. therefore, the moment you die, existence loses meaning because you no longer perceive anything. as such, when you die, the world dies with you. it all turns back into a void. if it's all turning back into a void anyways, then shouldn't life logically be worthless since anything and everything that happens will be erased?

[Admiral Akainu]

Well, if we go by the bible, then animals lives are actually worth more than ours because they dont have the ability to sin. Anaimls are perfect and humans aren't. We have the ability to reason, but sin and evil comes along with that. Animals cant reason, but are pure at heart.

I love my dog to death, and i would be pissed when he died. I love my dog more than a lot of humans, so i'd take his death harder than say my cousins.

[NonExistence]

good point there. speaking in a purely biblical sense, unless one becomes pure like a child, one cannot enter heaven. as such it is logical to infer that a pure soul like a child's is worth more than an impure one. it goes against the bible, but it is a logical inference. if that is logical then it is also logical to say that animals' souls, which (as previously stated) have never sinned, are completely pure, to the extent where they are more pure than any human's, and are worth more than human souls. however, that is only one facet of it. firstly, (and this is still talking in a purely biblical sense, since i'm nihilistic) god created humans to be the steward of the planet, effectively placing us on a higher podium than animals. secondly, the precise passing of christ was to cleanse human's sins, making them completely pure (sinless like animals). therefore, humans (or at least the ones to be saved) would still be worth more than animals, even in a biblical sense.

[R the Vampire]

Say all about lives you want though you'll hardly care killing one at hunt...

Without any Sympathy in mind a human killed a animal to make it his own treat and to survive...

Humans Only care to survive, No matter what

Even If it is to kill a poor animal who hardly has self conciousness in this large world...
Humans won't hesitate if It is to survive.

If Animals have instinct to attack for self defence, we have instinct to survive by doing no matter what.

Even if you blargh nonsense about animal lives and human lives being equal, you'll just turn off the P.C and eat chicken for your Lunch...Just how the hell did you get the idea? That everyone's life is equal? World is too unfair...you can just splurt out your ideals though it won't help...you'll be another loser in the race of millions....

Humans do not value Animal lives as their equal.

[NonExistence]

where did i say that human and animal lives were equal? before you post, would you mind actually READING the post before? that'll help just the SLIGHTEST amount...

of course life's not fair. everyone knows it. we just decide not to talk about it because it's so obvious. the only people who complain about life not being fair are the ones who refuse to accept it.

if you're going to be pessimistic, don't do it half-a**edly, otherwise you shame all those who are pessimistic, apathetic, and nihilistic. in simple words, GROW UP.

on a somewhat unrelated side note, where did anyone say that all human lives were equal? where did anyone spit out ideals? and WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CONTRADICTING YOUR WHOLE TIRADE ABOUT HOW THE ONLY LOGICAL RELIGION IS HUMANITY? WHICH ONE DO YOU BELIEVE IN, THAT HUMANS ONLY CARE TO SURVIVE, OR THAT HUMANS ARE BORN WITH THE "RELIGION" KNOWN AS HUMANITY!?

[R the Vampire]

Firstly, I did not intend to relate you in my post anywhere, If you mind to read...there are no quotations or your name mentioned anywhere....

Secondly, Whats wrong in refusing something? If you refuse life can be little different then of a normal human machine that goes round and round in circles in his daily life only to end up at where he left, Change is better

Thirdly, I don't do anything Half assedly or neither I belive I'm a shame to anything....because I don't classify myself as them...

And lastly...Where in hell did I just say human lives are equal? Read closely if you would care to I said 'Humans do not value Animals lives above their own' and also the line 'You can splurt out your ideals though it won't help...you'll be another loser in the race of millions' was used to refer me and 'Others' who belive in theirs ideals whom no one does belive...

[Admiral Akainu]

good point there. speaking in a purely biblical sense, unless one becomes pure like a child, one cannot enter heaven. as such it is logical to infer that a pure soul like a child's is worth more than an impure one. it goes against the bible, but it is a logical inference. if that is logical then it is also logical to say that animals' souls, which (as previously stated) have never sinned, are completely pure, to the extent where they are more pure than any human's, and are worth more than human souls. however, that is only one facet of it. firstly, (and this is still talking in a purely biblical sense, since i'm nihilistic) god created humans to be the steward of the planet, effectively placing us on a higher podium than animals. secondly, the precise passing of christ was to cleanse human's sins, making them completely pure (sinless like animals). therefore, humans (or at least the ones to be saved) would still be worth more than animals, even in a biblical sense.

Well that's about right. I agree with all and i believe that hyumans , as a group, are more "important" because of our placing on this earth by God and because of what Jesus was martyred for. I still tink animals are very important and i still maintain that animals are purer than humans. NonExistance, pretty much said it all.

[Pferd]

I like animals! specially with some salt pepper and a nice peppersauce!

with that said, no i think most animals a clearly lower then humans. If I kill an annoying fly I don't think i do that much harm to the world.

If i kill a cow, I don't see myself as evil. However..if that was someones favorit pet cow, then i would cause much more harm.

So the thing i care for is. Do i cause someone harm by killing. I eat cows, pigs, chickens, and maybe some parts of horsies. I assume non of these animals suffer insanly. And no human or other piggy's are really really sad after their good buddy ended up in my belly.

Killing baby elephants however causes the mother elephant to be sad for quite a long time (they remember the place their youngs die for sometimes over 15 years...) ..so Killing elephants does cause harm.

Also elephants, great apes, whales, dolphins are to smart to kill.

[BfDsTrEeT]

I like animals! specially with some salt pepper and a nice peppersauce!

with that said, no i think most animals a clearly lower then humans. If I kill an annoying fly I don't think i do that much harm to the world.

If i kill a cow, I don't see myself as evil. However..if that was someones favorit pet cow, then i would cause much more harm.

So the thing i care for is. Do i cause someone harm by killing. I eat cows, pigs, chickens, and maybe some parts of horsies. I assume non of these animals suffer insanly. And no human or other piggy's are really really sad after their good buddy ended up in my belly.

Killing baby elephants however causes the mother elephant to be sad for quite a long time (they remember the place their youngs die for sometimes over 15 years...) ..so Killing elephants does cause harm.

Also elephants, great apes, whales, dolphins are to smart to kill.

Uhh...what?

I don't understand a lot of whatever you said but I can see that they probably should ban you from every zoo out there.

Look there are people who kill dolphins and elephants and don't give a damn if the elephant's mom is gonna feel sad(same goes for the dolphin or whatever animal you deem important or too smart to be killed).

Animals are the same as us humans.They eat , breath , sleep , reproduce all that stuff.This may seem like some old wise man nonsense but there is a natural cycle to life.It's true that I don't cry about every fly or bug I kill but it still might ruin that life cycle a bit.

Let's put it this way.I kill a dozen more rabbits today cause they're tasty and I wanna eat them.Killing those rabbits left wolves or foxes without food.So of course they seek others kinds of sustainance ranging from farm animal to chewy tasty humans that eat piggys.
Same thing if you kill the wolves.The rabbits cause damage to a plantation.They don't joke about the fact that they spread quickly.

So yeah animals lives are equal to those of humans.Each life has a purpose and that is no chinese cracker bull.

[Pferd]

Uhh...what?


Let's put it this way.I kill a dozen more rabbits today cause they're tasty and I wanna eat them.Killing those rabbits left wolves or foxes without food.So of course they seek others kinds of sustainance ranging from farm animal to chewy tasty humans that eat piggys.
Same thing if you kill the wolves.The rabbits cause damage to a plantation.They don't joke about the fact that they spread quickly.

So yeah animals lives are equal to those of humans.Each life has a purpose and that is no chinese cracker bull.


O noes! don't ban me from zoos! Do enjoy watching them too! (not only on my plate!)

Only i don't really believe in purpose, Even human life, is often pretty purposesles. Eventually all will be without a purpose. (specially if I see a child aged 0-30 days die a stupid death my feelings inject me with an idea/clue of how godless and purposless the world really can be).

But that aside, killing bugs won't make you ruin the cycly of life. Spiders kill more bugs then you, Horses have tails just to smack em with. And yes sometimes a lifeform DOES go exist because they are killed to much, but believe me, flies and musqetos aren't one of those. (spelling ? >.<)
So you can smack them! pls do! :P (gorilla's/whales/elephants do however. And i'm not pleased with that)

I do believe i can eat animals, I believe i can kill the small onces (Like flies). It however does not mean i think i can butcher around. The animals i pick to eat are often onces that had a good life. (Live in the Netherlands, can see on the package if they where from bioindustry of from a place where they have a bit more 'rights'). Only in restaurants I can't check for that.

I also do not think kill wild animals is a good thing because as you said, the ecosystem can be fragile. But the things i eat aren't in an ecosystem :D.

And the things i kill are just 5 flies out of the 50.000. So it will make a difference, but not enough to damage a system :>

[Manhunter098]

Well since you cannot prove that purpose exists in biological organisms (except those that are designed). And the destruction of something being positive or negative is entirely subjective. And we cannot prove that a right to live even exists since that is also subjective. That the only reasonable stance to take is that all existence is equal and that no part of existence has any importance since that is also subjective.

That is of course if you dont believe in a designer, since the design of something gives it a purpose.

[Pferd]

Well since you cannot prove that purpose exists in biological organisms (except those that are designed). And the destruction of something being positive or negative is entirely subjective. And we cannot prove that a right to live even exists since that is also subjective. That the only reasonable stance to take is that all existence is equal and that no part of existence has any importance since that is also subjective.

That is of course if you dont believe in a designer, since the design of something gives it a purpose.


The great thing about not believing in any designer is you get to make up your on purpose. Atleast, for a small part. :) Cause it can collide with other peoples happyness, DNA won't let us do everything, and our free will is limited aswell.
But that does make us different then animals. Humans can do stuff they where not designed for. Most animals can't :)

And from a very objective point of view I can't say i'm any better or higher then an animal. Its just who survives that matters. Only I do know people i know will go emo for a view days if i die. And a cow for example doesn't know it gets killed, the other cows won't miss the dead cow. And if they do they would forget in a few days. So killing a human will cause shitloads of more harm then killing a fly or a bunny. And not only the things that stay behind that suffer.

A bunny will feel fear if it dies, but it will miss the sensation of realising all will end, what its life could have been, and all kinds of things only humans can experience because of our ability to comprehend a bit more.

[Manhunter098]

Who survives doesnt even matter. The universe simply is. And if the universe wasnt it simply wouldnt be. Existence or non existence is equal from an objective viewpoint.

I also say we arent designed for anything because that statement implies a designer which cannot be falsified so we cannot objectively reason about a designer.

[AnatoliaFangirl]

I have a question, and I thought it'd make sense to post it here rather than make a whole new thread (but if it's wrong, Mods please change it :))

I just got my female cat neutered like two weeks ago. Now I was just thinking, according to those who fight for animal rights, is neutering ones pet for or against their rights? Doesn't an animal have a right to mate and reproduce like we do?

Now I am not talking about the benefits of neutering (I know them hence my steps to get my cat neutered) but more on what animal rights activists believe.

[Lone_ant]

I have a question, and I thought it'd make sense to post it here rather than make a whole new thread (but if it's wrong, Mods please change it :))

I just got my female cat neutered like two weeks ago. Now I was just thinking, according to those who fight for animal rights, is neutering ones pet for or against their rights? Doesn't an animal have a right to mate and reproduce like we do?

Now I am not talking about the benefits of neutering (I know them hence my steps to get my cat neutered) but more on what animal rights activists believe.

Girl, you did already, so.. it's moot. Don't lose sleep over it, that's my advice. Has your cat gotten over the post-operatic depression? There you go.

The weight of a life (be it human or otherwise) is never an easy thing to measure. Whose life is worth the more, the sinner or the saint? Either one or the other is an unfair answer, all we can say is that one chose the sadder path.

Now I have killed many a bug, fly and critter in my day (and legions will it be ere my breath is caught up in Death), yet will all the lives of all the bugs that have fallen, and ever will fall by the hands of the sons of Adam (or [insert first human here]), as such is the doom between these two races, ever equal one human life?

Who will thee be the more sorrowful by, the death of your beloved pet, companion in all those years and only friend when all others shun your shadow, or an anonymous person who you have never met nor ever shall as he lives halfway across the world?

The question is moot.

P.S. Sorry, just finished Tolkien's Sillmarilion today, and the toung- er, language seems to have rubbed off me.

[SadisticxSherbert]

I believe none are higher than another being, humans are equal to animals, humans are equal to bugs.
Animals and such may not create
But in science humans are actucally animals, we are mammals, we are warm blooded like many others. We are no different or superior.
Humans eat animals, animals eat animals, animals eat vegation, when animals die their bodies supply nutrients to the ground and help grow vegation.
In the basic cycle of life none are superior and that is what we must look at.
Looking at how humans have weapons isnt the way, without them we are just as weak as a mouse to a cat if we were to a hungry lion.

[The Dane]

If you ask me I would like to give my own life for an animal even though I didnt know the animal.
Why? because animals were here before us and they are not the once who destroys the beautiful world we live in.
It is like a crime the one who just live there lives as they should arent the one who should end up in prison. We are the bullies in this world.

Awake the animal in me....

[Lone_ant]

If you ask me I would like to give my own life for an animal even though I didnt know the animal.
Why? because animals were here before us and they are not the once who destroys the beautiful world we live in.
It is like a crime the one who just live there lives as they should arent the one who should end up in prison. We are the bullies in this world.

Awake the animal in me....

Er, are you sure about that.. are you sure you don't have suicidal tendencies? Anyway, having you lay down your own life for an animal doesn't prove whether one or the other is greater, it only shows your own opinion of it.

[The Dane]

Haha.. maybe but isnt that what dabats is about? To tell your own opinion?
I just say that animals have a "soul" like think or a mind like anny human has (Fx. if a dog lose its owner it will maybe stop eat or gry becouse it misses its owner which is a kinde of love and feeling) and that makes them as equal as humen....

(BTW. Sorry for my bad writeing... O~O )

[holdontous]

I think that animal lives are sacred, but not equal to that of a human's. An attempt should be made to observe as many animal lives are possible, but if an animal will kill/severely wound a human, I think it should be killed.
I believe humans have the ability to do more than animals. Most of them are just not using it, unfortunately.

[millipede]

I think that it would be impracticle to have animals rights equal to humans.
I mean, human rights cause enough problems.
Also, it depends what you define as an animal; do you include insects, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians.
But I dont think animals should be delbratly misstreated or disstressed. Treat them as you would a baby or something.

[daarkh]

If I have to choose between saving the life of my dog who and a person who I don't know, I'll choose to save the person. I'll be heartbroken over my dog, but I wouldn't regret it.

Good point! I would do the same. Still if I have known my dog very well maybe i would save the dog...

[millipede]

If I have to choose between saving the life of my dog who and a person who I don't know, I'll choose to save the person. I'll be heartbroken over my dog, but I wouldn't regret it.

Good point! I would do the same. Still if I have known my dog very well maybe i would save the dog...

Id save the dog, unless the person was hot or you could get them owe you money or something useful.
I think your question poses the concept of saving something you know about as opposed to the unknown.

[Manhunter098]

I would probably save my dog honestly. And thats mostly because I feel I stand to benefit more overall by keeping my dog as opposed to saving the person. There would obviously be some other factors involved in the decision, but I think in most cases I would pick my dog over a person I dont know.

I do still place more value on human life than any other life, but above human life I place my life and my way of life. Of course in the grand scheme of things there is no evidence to indicate that humans are more or less important than anything in the universe or even that the universe itself is important.

[Keiichi]

You see now, many people are simply saying "I'd choose a person over my dog or cat." Now, they don't give a reason. The reason they are implying is that a person's life is more valuable than any other life because 1. Humans have the ability to think sentient thoughts 2. Humans have the ability to contribute much more than an animal 3. Humans have a conscious. However, it has been shown animals DO have feelings, such as a little puppy crying from loneliness, or a mother deer running off and banging her head after her fawn died. Now, the reason why animals such as cats and dogs, or whatever, are second-best to humans is because cats and dogs have no role other than being house pets. You might say cats catch mice, and dogs protect the house...but really, get serious. Dolphins and apes, they are important to the ecosystem because they keep the food chain in balance, but humans can keep it in balance by introducing something new to keep the balance. Sentient thoughts are not a requirement for feelings or for progress, spider thread is stronger than steel and we are studying it for commercial use. Animals feel pain, even though they cannot think, but since they are worthless in terms of progress, we kill them for food or to get rid of them without remorse. Torturing an animal is cruel, and IMO as long as you respect an animal while you kill it, and make it quick, you're good in my book.

Edit: Let me say this, all men are not equal nor are created equal; however, all men deserve an equal chance to LIVE.

[Jmsn]

To answer the initial question...it depends on how tasty that animal is.

In all seriousness ,from an objective standpoint all animals are equal.They all live,die and feast on one another.

However, as a human;from a subjective standpoint it is important to see humans as above animals in terms of value simply because we are human.To treat a ant with more respect than another person is to say you view yourself as a human being having less value than an ant.

[Lone_ant]

Hey I resent that =p

Well, to kick things up a notch. Do you know that Human fetuses and Ape fetuses look exactly the same during the first few weeks (heck change Ape to Dolphi, Rat, heck any Vertebrae)?

i.e. taking only the fetus into account (not the sea of hormones the womb is, the mother's influnece etc. the only diffrence between fetuses on certain points of time on early conception is DNA.

[ishxallxgood]

To answer the initial question...it depends on how tasty that animal is.

In all seriousness ,from an objective standpoint all animals are equal.They all live,die and feast on one another.

However, as a human;from a subjective standpoint it is important to see humans as above animals in terms of value simply because we are human.To treat a ant with more respect than another person is to say you view yourself as a human being having less value than an ant.

a beg to agree and disagree... i agree with the objective standpoint... we're all animals... yes, being human places us in the "anima'" category...

but... from the subjective stand point i have to say we aren't "above animals in terms of value simply because we are human" but more so because we have a soul... (or a conscience if we're not religious) ... that sets us apart from animals. we think about our actions we contemplate what we're gonna do, we are calculative, conniving creatures... but we also have morals.... animals act upon instinct... there kill because they are either protecting their territory or simply need to eat... the protect their young... us humans on the other hand, plan out our lives, need rules and structure, theories and culture, and art.... that's what sets us aside... our deeper need for explanations, our need to further our intelect....

[Manhunter098]

a beg to agree and disagree... i agree with the objective standpoint... we're all animals... yes, being human places us in the "anima'" category...

but... from the subjective stand point i have to say we aren't "above animals in terms of value simply because we are human" but more so because we have a soul... (or a conscience if we're not religious) ... that sets us apart from animals. we think about our actions we contemplate what we're gonna do, we are calculative, conniving creatures... but we also have morals.... animals act upon instinct... there kill because they are either protecting their territory or simply need to eat... the protect their young... us humans on the other hand, plan out our lives, need rules and structure, theories and culture, and art.... that's what sets us aside... our deeper need for explanations, our need to further our intelect....

Not necessarily even that. Sure we can tell that some animals have no conscious thought, but some are too close to call. What we do have over animals is more or less the ability to pass down a great deal of knowledge between generations, which is pretty much just a better version of what some animals can already do for the most part. Furthermore you cant place a value on conscious thought anyways. Its just a difference and you cannot objectively consider it to be a factor that makes us better.


In order for your argument to work, you need to find an objective reason why humans are better than rocks.

[Pferd]

If you ask me I would like to give my own life for an animal even though I didnt know the animal.
Why? because animals were here before us and they are not the once who destroys the beautiful world we live in.
It is like a crime the one who just live there lives as they should arent the one who should end up in prison. We are the bullies in this world.

Awake the animal in me....

Are you sure about that? Next time i'll squash a fly i'll think about you :)
And wouldn't you just hate me if i killed a close friend of yours instead of a wasp, just because i think they are equal anyway? :P

Animals where here before us? That hardly makes em better or higher? Indians were there before those 'nice' white people. I think that most americans have a right to life in america if they threat indians nice :>

I think i lived here before my brother, so i have more rights than my brother? (dont have a brother :P)

We destroy the 'beautiful' world. But we are to only onces to call it beautifull anyway. Although i agree we should take care of nature and its ways. I don't live decadent and don't eat to much meat cause i think its bad for the environment.
Well, its not much but better than most of the 'pro' nature people driving 3 big cars to their 3 extra houses in spain. Or the pro 'nature' people eating shitloads of meat and buying new puters every year.


In all seriousness ,from an objective standpoint all animals are equal.They all live,die and feast on one another.

However, as a human;from a subjective standpoint it is important to see humans as above animals in terms of value simply because we are human.To treat a ant with more respect than another person is to say you view yourself as a human being having less value than an ant.

I think i agree with you.
Purely objective everything is equal. Only that is also a hard one. Cause if we are equal to animals, animals kill each other, can we kill animals? Without or concience (subjective) getting in our way.

And why do i get pissed everytime my mom gets killed and eaten? And when I kill a fly his mom won't get pissed? (most likely cause fly's are stupid..but thats just a gues)

If everything is objective i'm not evil if i eat humans or animals.
So why say 'i can't eat animals' cause from an objective point of view they are equal?
Cause that would be linking something subjective to something objective. Thats always very tricky.

Subjective we are influenced by society, emotions and a lot of other stuff.
I don't care to much about objective.

I don't mind a bit suffering every now and then. But i think that the cow i eat won't destroy 5 lifes for several years.
If i eat someone's mother i destroy a lot of lives.
First reason why i think animals (from subjective) are lower than human.
Kill animal, is low amount of suffering and a tasty dish.
Kill human is 10-100 years of suffering in total + 'tasty' dish?

Subjective reason 2:
Also humans can depelop them selfs. I can say be in a higher level of conciencenes than animals. I can probably be more happy more sad, give more value to things.
(compaired to when i was two years old , i remember more now, and value life more. I have some memories from when i was two years old, I think an animal would look at the world about the same as i looked at it then. Its pretty lame if you don't even know your concience lol)

Subjective reasoning might not sound very good but it still is better than objective imo (in this case). Because we humans are emotional, that gives 'value'. From an objective standpoint nothing is worth something. And simply we humans can't do that. We are subjective. So reasoning from an objective standpoint would mean we wouldn't take into acount emotions or anything that makes us human.

If someone would had to chose, kill a fly or kill a human
I would be pretty pissed if they chose to kill the human. No one will miss a fly, the fly won't realise at all. Except

But i might get to like the objective standpoint more.
From an objective standpoint i can do what ever i want. I can rape twenty girls tonights, its only materials colliding anyway. w00t.
Its not good its not bad, it just happened. But the girls suffered? Well, suffering doesn't excist when objective >:)

[evilcheeser]

I think i agree with you.
Purely objective everything is equal. Only that is also a hard one. Cause if we are equal to animals, animals kill each other, can we kill animals? Without or concience (subjective) getting in our way.

If everything is objective i'm not evil if i eat humans or animals.
So why say 'i can't eat animals' cause from an objective point of view they are equal?
Cause that would be linking something subjective to something objective. Thats always very tricky.


I like the first point I quoted here. If animals are just as great as us, should we do just like them, and slaughter other animals for food? Also, personally, I have a much simpler view of life: I believe what I see, and I judge on how I feel. Bugs scare the crap outta me. So I kill them. Fair's fair. I would never kill a bug on a tree in a forest, or in a park. But if they're in my house, they're invaiding my territory. By their rules, I can kill them with fair warning.

(Fair warning is putting up signs saying I'll kill them, usually--not my fault they can't read) Besides, they usually choose to commit suicide in my water glass or get caught in cobwebs if I don't kill them, so maybe I'm doing them a favor?

/p.s. ironic how Pferd is posting about animals...

[Pferd]

haha, yeah, pferd is talking about animals and eating them. Salami ftw :P

hehe, i don't mind most bugs, as long as they don't bug me....I try to put them out of my house alive,

(with one exception...its my sacred and sworn duty to kill musqueto's (spelling?))

If i kill a fly and its whole family would come to my house to mourn for several days, hate, me and be depressed for 3 years.... i would seriously not kill fly's again ever..... but hey thats not the case :D

[kuratsky]

definitely not but i wouldn't approve of animal cruelty as well but if it is necessary to kill an animal for the survival of our species then i would approve of it. it isn't our fault that we evolved this much to the extent that we even feel empathy towards lower life forms.

[WOTG]

Humans are Animals.
We know our species is top dog.
Though, from our understanding, we should share respect to the lower Animal Kingdom, but we still keep our species before theirs, especially in a dangerous situation.
It's basic animal instict; such as any other animal would do such.

[animaddict]

We can't really directly say that the life of an animal is equal as that of a human... Humans are the highest living creature of god therefore our lives are higher compared to that of an animal... BUT we should also remember that animals are also living beings like us and should be treated nicely...

YES people are really more important than an animal BUT humans who act more like an animal abusing everything is nothing less than an animal himself... I'd rather save the life of my dieng mouse than to save a life of such a person...

[2thinkitive]

I believe that animals are on the higher end of nature, but humans are higher. Animals do not have the ability to reason (or atleast, on the level we do, from what I've seen), and have only their sense and instinct to go by. Though it's never right to be cruel to animals, I would sooner save a human from being hit by a bus than I would a dog.


ok, i understand where you're coming from. but that's just because i know that you've been conditioned to think that way. maybe you disagree, but it's totally understandable. i mean, we grow up into a world where we think that we are Superior. in my eyes, we aren't, our technology just happens to be better. again, that's *my* opinion. but with the technology that we have, we DO tend to have an advantage over smaller things. i think of it as bullying. what if your smaller, younger classmates, just happened to taste REALLY good? murdering them (after a good amount of time) would eventually become the norm. (yes, this is hypothetical) you may think it's impossible, but i don't. you obviously do not see animals as equals. that is where the debates thicken. i can go on forever on how i see animals, or why how you see animals is different, but the point i'm trying to make here, is that until you put our world into their shoes, you will never clearly see this debate from both angles. if you only look from your current, brain washed POV, than you will surely never change your ways for the better or the worse.

ah, here's a good example.
remember the Holocaust? if you don't, i'm gonna hit you.

The Holocaust had better conditions than some slaughter houses.

I'm COMPLETELY serious.
Ponder that.

[2thinkitive]

*ADDED THOUGHT*

i am Vegan (no meat or animal byproducts) not because i don't like it (which i do), or that i think they are equal to me(which i also kinda agree with). But I am Vegan because i think that if i NEEDED to eat an animal for a survival something, i would. Current forms of getting that meat disgust me and i think it's wrong. It's more a protest than anything. Please take this into account.

[One Winged Angel]

HUMAN = ANIMAL

98% of humans DNA is the same as chimpanzees's DNA..

but some people still thinks that humans are superior than other animals..they say that humans are not animals..

really? well.. let see.. what makes us better than animals?

1.animals don't disturb the balance of nature like we did.. cutting the trees, polluting air, water, land, everything.

2.animals don't play with other creatures lives, EAT is not the same as playing lives.. eat is a need to survive.. while humans kill birds just for fun, killing baby seals for sport (what kind of idiotic sport?), and LOADS of other cruel things...

3.humans are the most greed creatures in the planet, we need more natural resources than any other creatures on earth..



Humans are just too much, during the last century, humans population grew from 1 about billion to about 6 billions people..
if we keep that growth number, and without any natural predator, human will need more nature's resources than the nature could provide.. and the nature's balance will be disturbed...

then, the future generation will eventually starve...




so what makes us 'higher' than animals?


IT'S OUR BRAINS..
and just like uncle ben told peter parker, with a great power comes great responsibility..

we, as the most intelligent creatures on this planet, have more responsibility to this planet.. so.. be responsible to this planet.. please stop things that will destroy the nature's balance.. because the earth is our responsibility as the most intelligent creatures...

[Jmsn]

I stay away from meat myself simply because I don't like the way it makes me feel or the taste of it.No moral objections really.

.Humans are after all animals last time I checked so human lives equal to animal lives is not even a debate,its a fact.Be it chicken or fish,it'd be no different than eating a human or a cat and eating from dead animals is not what I do.I being human no doubt will naturally focus more on human lives than animal lives.I don't object to the killing of an animal for food because I don't object to the killing of a human for any reason either.They're all animals anyway right?And if human lives are equal to animal lives' that is not an alarming large value at all.

Then again I think we value humanity too much anyhow.Its incapable of elevating itself above a basic animal level and the basic animal needs.Hence I say human lives are equal to animal lives :D.We're just animals with computers.

[d0ll'doll]

I'm sorry but if you can see a dog's penis the same as your own (if you have one). Or if you see the flesh of a human as edible as the flesh of a cow. Then I can see why you might think of animals and humans equally. But I'd also find you a pretty sick bastard.

Anyways, off the aggressive bar and to the point.
Killing anything is wrong, but we all agree that this ecosystem runs by the food chain. Tiger, dog, or human, we need to eat to survive. Thus, you kill another species to eat and supply yourself. Most of our ancestors lived in harmony with nature, which means its possible for us also. But to put an animal on the equal rights of a human, is just wrong. We agree that abuse is cruel and inhumane (Note 'human' in the word, hence we agree that abusing animals is below human). But also, highly regarding something totally different as equal is foolish.

[kuratsky]

*ADDED THOUGHT*

i am Vegan (no meat or animal byproducts) not because i don't like it (which i do), or that i think they are equal to me(which i also kinda agree with). But I am Vegan because i think that if i NEEDED to eat an animal for a survival something, i would. Current forms of getting that meat disgust me and i think it's wrong. It's more a protest than anything. Please take this into account.

as a vegan your primary concern is the ethical issue on how we acquire food , such as killing lower life forms for example. Now have you ever thought that just because something isn't hairy, fleshy, bloody or to to sum it all up sentient doesn't mean you are not taking away life. take for instance a simple carrot planted on the garden, you decided to pick it up because you need something to eat. you peel the skin and no blood comes out of it, slice it still no blood trickles and finally you cook it, still the same result. Now compare it to a fish or land animal and you'll have blood spilled. is it the gore that disgust you or the manner of killing the creature?

[WOTG]

We are all equal to life but not in priority. Animal Cruelty is only used when hurting or killing the animal has no reasonable benefit. We kill and fight other animals to live, but then we fight eachother for that same purpose.

[kuratsky]

HUMAN = ANIMAL

98% of humans DNA is the same as chimpanzees's DNA..

but some people still thinks that humans are superior than other animals..they say that humans are not animals..

really? well.. let see.. what makes us better than animals?

1.animals don't disturb the balance of nature like we did.. cutting the trees, polluting air, water, land, everything.

2.animals don't play with other creatures lives, EAT is not the same as playing lives.. eat is a need to survive.. while humans kill birds just for fun, killing baby seals for sport (what kind of idiotic sport?), and LOADS of other cruel things...

3.humans are the most greed creatures in the planet, we need more natural resources than any other creatures on earth..



Humans are just too much, during the last century, humans population grew from 1 about billion to about 6 billions people..
if we keep that growth number, and without any natural predator, human will need more nature's resources than the nature could provide.. and the nature's balance will be disturbed...

then, the future generation will eventually starve...




so what makes us 'higher' than animals?


IT'S OUR BRAINS..
and just like uncle ben told peter parker, with a great power comes great responsibility..

we, as the most intelligent creatures on this planet, have more responsibility to this planet.. so.. be responsible to this planet.. please stop things that will destroy the nature's balance.. because the earth is our responsibility as the most intelligent creatures...

first of all 98% is not equal to 100% almost but never equal

yes i still think and will always think that humans are superior to animals. it's a given, we are the only species that can hunt down even the mightiest of them brute, kudos to our superior intelligence.

1. i heard that rats are pretty good too when it comes to upsetting the balance of nature. when they were first introduced by vermin carrying explorers, they did what their masters couldn't, conquer the world and spread the good news of God (go to the world and multiply).In the middle ages they tried to exterminate the europeans but only managed to decimate 30% of the population. In the end they just settled on harassing the other critters by taking over their roles in the ecosystem ,pushing the latter on the brink of extinction.

2. my dog killed a chicken just for the kicks of it. i'm sure there are other sadistic animals out there i just couldn't remember it.

3. this i agree with you

and finally great power does come with great responsibility.

[One Winged Angel]

1. there are many creatures that could change an ecosystem became better suited for them but not good for other creatures, such as algae, rats, and humans..
but those animals and plants, only disturb some little area of this earth.. while we.. we disturb the whole balance of earth's nature..

2. your dog did not eat it? well, if that so.. but humans are the only creature that capable of extincting other creatures only just for fun, pride, etc (not for eat)... no other animals that could do this..



you are right, WE ARE the most intelligent creature on the planet, but that alone does not makes us higher than the other creatures.. why? this is what i think...


in humans, someone is considered as a noble person is from his/her manner.. what he do, what he say, etc.. not by his/her intelligence right?

same thing going on creatures.. narcs dealer, corrupt politicians, environment destroyers are lower than any parasites on earth.. why? because they put MANY other creatures to misery..
just a few people could made so many creatures to suffer... that's a real parasite..


what makes us noble, is what we do... not our intelligence.

we have this intelligence, is only because Humans have the largest brains in relation to body size. it has nothing to do to our 'noblety' as the highest creature..


from my point of view...

humans that have a positive impact to their surroundings should be regarded as humans that are higher than other animals

humans that put many other creatures to misery are lower than parasites

humans that only lives for eat and mate, is no different from animals



@ doll'doll: you must have a reason why you believe that.. write it down so we can discuss it here, and keep the words respectful..

[kuratsky]

it's not about honor or nobility and stuff like that it's about why we are not equal from the rest of the animal kingdom.

[Manhunter098]

it's not about honor or nobility and stuff like that it's about why we are not equal from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Your right, in terms of ability to replicate we are inferior to viruses. In fact, who says being the smartest species even makes us the best? Does being more fit to survive really even make one species better than another?

Everything in the universe from the biggest star to the smallest atom is equal in importance without an assertion being made otherwise, but is that assertion even enough to change the actual value that something has?

If you want to look at it a different way though, nothing is equal unless its exactly the same, but we still cant objectively determine how an inequality makes something "better" or "more important" than something else.

[One Winged Angel]

it's not about honor or nobility and stuff like that it's about why we are not equal from the rest of the animal kingdom.

then why do you think we are higher than animals?? just intelligence?


i don't think so... i have said that intelligence alone would never make us higher than animals..

corrupt politicians are smart actors and liars.. are they 'high'? in fact they put MANY other creature to misery..

would a dog do that? it probably, if it has the capability and intelligence, but it can't..

that's why intelligence alone won't make us higher than animals

[kuratsky]

just because viruses are superior to us in terms of reproduction doesn't mean it's equal or better than us in other aspects.

and how do you define importance or being better? is it on the success of the species in general and how it can affect other species. man has that power, do monkeys have that? or viruses or sharks? do these animals have the ability to decide the fate of other creatures if it chooses too? certainly we have gone beyond things other animals couldn't even begin to fathom. it's all about achievements, that's how we judge people that how me judge other things i certainly don't know how else we can judge them.

[One Winged Angel]

j
and how do you define importance or being better? is it on the success of the species in general and how it can affect other species. man has that power, do monkeys have that? or viruses or sharks? do these animals have the ability to decide the fate of other creatures if it chooses too? certainly we have gone beyond things other animals couldn't even begin to fathom. it's all about achievements, that's how we judge people that how me judge other things i certainly don't know how else we can judge them.

yep, humans have the power, but what makes someone higher than animals is what they use that power for...

if they use it to creates suffers.. they are lower than parasites.. that's what i'm trying to say..

power alone will not makes us better..

[kuratsky]

then why do you think we are higher than animals?? just intelligence?


i don't think so... i have said that intelligence alone would never make us higher than animals..

corrupt politicians are smart actors and liars.. are they 'high'? in fact they put MANY other creature to misery..

would a dog do that? it probably, if it has the capability and intelligence, but it can't..

that's why intelligence alone won't make us higher than animals

why do you keep on stressing virtues such as nobility when animals don't even have those kinds of things. they act on instinct and not because they know the difference between morally right and wrong. i don't care whether or not some people are plain bastards the thing is that you can never compare a man and an animal for a lot of reasons.

[One Winged Angel]

why do you keep on stressing virtues such as nobility when animals don't even have those kinds of things. they act on instinct and not because they know the difference between morally right and wrong.

they have..

many animals fight to get their mate, some of them dance, sing, give present, etc.. and they wont mess with other guy's 'wife'.. they admit their loss..

animals have nobility, only we just can't see it as clear as in humans..


and animals have morality...
look here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8mzz8xt6AU

why would that hippo saves the impala if it don't have a morality?

i don't care whether or not some people are plain bastards the thing is that you can never compare a man and an animal for a lot of reasons.


what are those reasons? write it down, so we can discuss it here..


and this cpuld mean, even hitler is higher than the other animals?

[kuratsky]

i have been stressing those reasons in my previous posts, i don't need to reiterate myself. and yes hitler is above any other animal no matter how vile he was. you are basing all your arguments solely on moral issues and you tend to Put certain individuals as if they speak for humanity in general.

[Jmsn]

Human are animals.In its base desires,mankind requires food,sex,water and warmth just like any other mammal or better yet any other species of animal.

There is always a animal like Hitler in every herd.A cunning beast who manipulates to his own ends withing the social hierarchy.Nonetheless, remove the comfort from which such a beast operates and even the most brilliant of men will stumble to their base instincts.The base instincts for individual survival being food,water and warmth.Even a rare case like Einstein if homeless would not have ceased to focus solely on food water and warmth ahead of what additional intellectual pursuits there were.

Men of great intelligence would just have a more manipulative and cunning way to get food water and warmth and most probably find it faster to re-establish themselves into normal society with some scheme to remove the shackles of poverty.Animals of great intelligence would do the same!

What we humans have as technology,entertainments,and everything else are mere distractions from the fact that at our core,we are animals.Why is advertisement centered around mainly food sex and clothes.Food ,sex and warmth basic human needs.Why do people socialize?For sex and of course a good standing within the human herd lest they be ousted.

IMO all animals are equal in the sense that they rely on their environment.A lion is king of the jungle until the herds he relies on as food are gone,then he is dead.Those herds are only alive as long as the plant life they can eat.

In a civilized society we have the advantage of farming animals and plants.Once those supplies dwindle,starvation occurs.Then the king of the world ,humanity,ceases to exist.In that sense we are all the same.The only thing surpassing animals and humans are plants.They need only the sun and water.Without a doubt without them ,every animal no matter how cunning is as good as gone!

[conradxu]

actually, humans are classified as part of the food chain, we are at the top while bacteria or whatever is at the bottom, we are all living organisms and thus are animals in some way.

many people do not believe that we are animals, from religions and arrogence. but evolution proves that we are.

us humans are the most intelligent race, we have evolved the most in the shortest period of time. and with this quick change we are blinded by our arrogence to see fit that we are still animal.

evolutions says that we were once part of the ape family, NOT the monkey. over time we started to use nature as our tools, this was our first step towards intelligence. when we started lifting off the ground with our two feet, we started our tour of evolution.

animals feel the same pain and think the same way as we do, this includes: hate, fear, joy, playfulness, boredness, curiosity. these are basic, but with our intelligence we surpass, with lust, arrognce, jealosy, greed. but one thing that still proves that we are animal is that we still have basic instinct.

this all means that animals are the same as us, just inferior in strength, population and intelligence. and thus their life is equal to ours. though in the face of danger, we will protect our own kind and out of emotion, others if possible. animals have not evolved to that intelligence and thus are only able to "survive".

why we kill other animals is just our unevolved instinct of survival. but id protect my dog instead of 1 person (unless family [because they are all my own]) not because of ethics, but survival of my conscience. knowing that that "1 person" has killed thousands of animals, i wont regret it.
also if i were to die, i wouldnt expect my dog to save me as it does not have the intelligence to do so. for my instinct of survival, if i was gonna die, i would wana stop it, but its something that everyone has to live through.

[Jmsn]

I really hate to make a serious debate funny but it reminds me of hollows from bleach.Humans are like the Vasto Lorde.The Vasto Lorde are super powerful but they are still hollows.We are smart and technological and have cultures and all,we are still animals.

[kuratsky]

i never said that man is not an animal, it's stupid to assume that we are not coz we have been told ever since elementary that we are part of the animal kingdom. while i agree that just like any other animal we succumb to our basic instincts. what i have been stressing from the very beginning is our intellectual superiority over the rest of the animals and how we use it to our advantage.

even if man is just the same in comparison to the rest of the animals with regards to their basic needs and instincts it would not however mean that we are equal to them. tell me have you seen/heard a man executed on the grounds that he murdered countless animals?the maximum sentence he'll probably get is a lifetime imprisonment. the reason behind it is clearly a man's life is never equal to even the lives of countless critters. man and animals may theoretically be equal but fact is that reality tells us that it is not.

[conradxu]

first of all 98% is not equal to 100% almost but never equal


That what evolution is... if only you'd though of that...

just because we are smarter then them doesnt mean we are better.

its only because we evoled faster than them.

if your little sister was smarter than you, would that also make her better than you?

[kuratsky]

so it wasn't our fault we evolved this much? it wasn't our fault the rest of them animals decided to stay stupid and remain unchanged while we evolved dramatically. don't blame it on evolution.

if my sister was smarter than me then she is better than me in that aspect. i don't understand why being smarter than the other is not an edge? so you mean to say we all just treat the same things as equal when in reality they aren't?

[One Winged Angel]

tell me have you seen/heard a man executed on the grounds that he murdered countless animals?the maximum sentence he'll probably get is a lifetime imprisonment. the reason behind it is clearly a man's life is never equal to even the lives of countless critters.

that's just because humans are egoist... even though they know that he's really guilty, he's their brother, they protect their brothers...

that's just because humans are selfish..that does not mean humans lives are more important than other creatures...


in the nature..
we need plants to be the food producers, and oxygen producers
we need herbivores to spread the seeds of plants, and to be the foods of carnivores
we need carnivores to keep the herbivores number, because if herbivores are too much, plants will vanished
and we need bacterias to decompose dead bodies...

you see, earth's nature is a prefect circle of life, prefect balance...
i don't see that they need humans to maintain the balance.. and since nature needs no humans, how could our live is more important than the others?

[kuratsky]

that's just because humans are egoist... even though they know that he's really guilty, he's their brother, they need to protect their brothers...

that's just because humans are selfish..that does not mean humans lives are more important than other creatures...


in the nature..
we need plants to be the food producers, and oxygen producers
we need herbivores to spread the seeds of plants, and to be the foods of carnivores
we need carnivores to keep the herbivores number, because if herbivores are too much, plants will vanished
and we need bacterias to decompose dead bodies...

you see, earth's nature is a prefect circle of life, prefect balance...
i don't see that they need humans to maintain the balance.. and since nature needs no humans, how could our live is more important than the others?

you seem to be living in the safety of your utopian dream. get out of it and see what it's like in the real world or you are prolly to damn scared to accept that we are the dominant species and in our hands the power to take and give life.

[One Winged Angel]

so it wasn't our fault we evolved this much? it wasn't our fault the rest of them animals decided to stay stupid and remain unchanged while we evolved dramatically. don't blame it on evolution.


we changed like this, is because our ancestors had a mutation..

you see.. a chimp's skull, is compared to early humans skull..
you can see a big difference in their jaws.. chimp's are bigger than human's, and that smaller jaws allowing us to have a bigger brains.. because the space was not 'consumed' by the jaw..

scientists believe that this sudden change in early human's jaw was because of mutation..

so we are smarter than them, because of mutation.. a coincidence..

and as time goes on, our jaws getting smaller (probably due to fire invention too), and our brains getting bigger... we are getting smarter..



if my sister was smarter than me then she is better than me in that aspect. i don't understand why being smarter than the other is not an edge? so you mean to say we all just treat the same things as equal when in reality they aren't?

so you are saying that if your sister is smarter than you, her punishment of killing you should be easier compared to your punishment if you kill her???

that's not it eh? you two will be equal in lives...

and again, you are saying that intelligence alone make us higher than the others... that's wrong..

[One Winged Angel]

you seem to be living in the safety of your utopian dream. get out of it and see what it's like in the real world or you are prolly to damn scared to accept that we are the dominant species and in our hands the power to take and give life.

we have the power, yes.. but does that power alone makes us better??? just that intelligence?????????? intelligence that we have just because a mutation??? a coincidence?????

oh my... what an arrogance..

[Jmsn]

i never said that man is not an animal, it's stupid to assume that we are not coz we have been told ever since elementary that we are part of the animal kingdom. while i agree that just like any other animal we succumb to our basic instincts. what i have been stressing from the very beginning is our intellectual superiority over the rest of the animals and how we use it to our advantage.

even if man is just the same in comparison to the rest of the animals with regards to their basic needs and instincts it would not however mean that we are equal to them. tell me have you seen/heard a man executed on the grounds that he murdered countless animals?the maximum sentence he'll probably get is a lifetime imprisonment. the reason behind it is clearly a man's life is never equal to even the lives of countless critters. man and animals may theoretically be equal but fact is that reality tells us that it is not.

Basically we don't hold animals in equalk values in terms of lives.Ok ,just because we as humans may not hold a non-human animal to equal to human value,does not mean we are not equals.It only mean that for whatever reason we believe ourselves to be above the other animals.

We may have more in terms of survivability and environmental impact,but that does not pit us above.The reason a man is not executed for killing animals is because its convenient to kill them for food.It is not that reality tells us its not,its that countless social laws and beliefs tell us.Beside a person should get a hefty sentence for killing another human and get none for killing a cat or dog IMO because killing another human is not conducive from a scientific standpoint to the survival of the species.

I applaud you for bringing that point up though.It is in fact a very good one.As humans,we have no choice but to value our lives as humans above those of animals.But that act in itself does not make the other countless critters less than.Surely there are things such odd creatures excel at that we humans do not.Its all a matter of perspective I guess.

Nonetheless your points are excellent.

[One Winged Angel]

well i must admit, if i see a lion wants to eat a man, i will save the man.. i don't care whether the lion is starving or not, i would probably kill the lion if he's still attacking us..

but that's just because our basic instinct tell us to help each other, we are a selfish creature, and it's in our instinct to help each other, nobody can deny that..

but even this does not mean that human's lives are not equal to animals..
just in our eyes, it seems so...

[Jmsn]

well i must admit, if i see a lion wants to eat a man, i will save the man.. i don't care whether the lion is starving or not, i would probably kill the lion if he's still attacking us..

but that's just because our basic instinct tell us to help each other, we are a selfish creature, and it's in our instinct to help each other, nobody can deny that..

but even this does not mean that human's lives are not equal to animals..
just in our eyes, it seems so...

I dunno,I'd just watch ,maybe bust out a cellphone,take pictures,record a video to get payed by some site like Ogrish or Rotten.Maybe some humans are broken.I can tell you my base instinct ain't to help,its to get the hell away from the carnage.

Still though,you illustrate the equivalence well.A man is only mightier than the lion when he has a gun.Without it,the supposed mightiest beast-man is lion poo and the lion becomes stronger in that case.

[conradxu]

same, id just watch and see who survives, best not tamper with nature. also coz i wana save my self

[kuratsky]

you are right it is indeed a matter of perspective. I am really intrigued as to why some people equate a man's life to that of an animal, at first the idea is absurd but when you try to look at it in a different point of view it really isn't that outlandish. equality may be a right but it is not a fact. history tells us that their are so many inequalities going on even today. Perhaps the reasons why we hunt,raise and enslave animals is because we need them as a source of food, clothing, and aid us in our activities. So putting it in the context of the history of human slavery, certain groups of people enslaved others for the same reasons. the reason why the latter was subjugated is not because they were inferior but because they were needed by the earlier as worker slaves or for sacrificial offerings. and the technological/intellectual advantage made the difference between the victor and the conquered just like what is now happening between man and animals.

[Manhunter098]

Well first of all the first fallacy you commit with your logic is that you fail to provide any reason short of your own personal opinion as to why anything holds any value at all. Ive made this point before, but basically in this universe, not even the universe holds any inherent value, unless of course you believe that a superior being has given meaning to existence, if you dont though, then there is no way to support the idea that anything has value without being completely subjective.

In that regard if nothing holds any actual value at all then everything is technically equal.

[kuratsky]

if you put it in that context then everything is equal and of no value at all.

[Jmsn]

if you put it in that context then everything is equal and of no value at all.

BINGO!Every animal is equally as worthless.In the end we will all be snuffed out ; barely capable of being a cosmic blip,no memory or care will exist of us.Just an infinitesimal spec of nature that made its noise extremely faint and vanished into the dark recesses of space :D

[EightySix]

My opinion is that certain animals are worth more than certain types of human...Criminal scums are worth less to me than my pet dog. If a car was about to hit the both of them and I could only save one heck even if it wasn't my pet dog just a stray dog, its highly likely I'd save the animal over some criminal. However then of course certain animals are worth more than others.. Some have been helped by humans to thrive for our own purposes..So fact is, we cant generalize animals..Cows aren't equal to mountain gorillas.. So the terms are animals lives equal to humans are to general. In certain scenarios maybe, in most i'd say No.

[Jmsn]

So an animal's worth is only based on personal value or the benefit you recieve from it.Because it is your pet ,it is more valuable than another human life if that human life is criminal.Fascinating.That certainly is more of a personal approach.

Is there any objective or universal way to view such a topic as this or is it all left to the individual ...I wonder.I think we ought to ask space aliens what they believe.I wonder what'd they say if we asked whether for whatever reason humans are more,less or equal to other animal lives.

They'd probably agree we are all equal by being worthless and inferior to them lol

[LethalSilence]

In philosophy/belief of most animal-mindful people or just people in the general good side, YES.

In reality, NO.

If we were so equal, why is it that most people are not doing a double take on that beef steak their going to devour? They knew it came from cow, why are they not mourning over it? Another reason of why most people are hypocrites.

Personal Gain - 1

Equality - 0

They won't eat animals if they are mindful of equality...

(inquiry of that 12 year old)

[Jmsn]

In philosophy/belief of most animal-mindful people or just people in the general good side, YES.

In reality, NO.

If we were so equal, why is it that most people are not doing a double take on that beef steak their going to devour? They knew it came from cow, why are they not mourning over it? Another reason of why most people are hypocrites.

Personal Gain - 1

Equality - 0

They won't eat animals if they are mindful of equality...

(inquiry of that 12 year old)

This however does not uncover the flaw in the argument that animals and humans are equal.This simply presents the fact that humans are a group of animals that will kill other animals for personal gain.

The notion that this alone makes human lives somehow above animal lives is absurd.Most people are indeed hypocrites The fact that humans can not be mindful of equality then is merely a human flaw,not evidence of inequality.

In fact the lack of mindfulness of this equality and the desire to eat a juicy steak blinds humanity from the truth,that they are indeed equal to animals.Our lives can be snuffed out equally as fast as a bug on the wall.And realization of the truth can swiftly disappear leaving a person that is no more than a dim witted animal.We are no more relevant than a group of ants at an anthill if not parallel in some aspects.

Saying because we eat animals,we are greater or because we are in the dominant position we are superior is just hiding from the fact that we are equally irrelevant.Therefore, basing your argument on what a mass consensus of idiots we call human do or think is absurd.It blinds you from seeing how parallel we really are even to the most insignificant of beasts.

[conradxu]

In philosophy/belief of most animal-mindful people or just people in the general good side, YES.

In reality, NO.

If we were so equal, why is it that most people are not doing a double take on that beef steak their going to devour? They knew it came from cow, why are they not mourning over it? Another reason of why most people are hypocrites.

Personal Gain - 1

Equality - 0

They won't eat animals if they are mindful of equality...

(inquiry of that 12 year old)

we are all equal, its just unspoken and unwritten and unthought of.

we dont mourn for the cow because we dont see the cow being killed, but we see the dead meat, and since it is alwready dead, we might aswell eat it.

[Jmsn]

I don't think if most folks had to kill it themselves they would eat it.Some would but not all.

A human eating a steak or a human eating a pizza is no different than a lion eating a deer or a rabbit eating a carrot when you look at it.We all tend to live off of that which is dead.The vicious cycle of life in which no creature is exempt.As long as we are all stuck in this cycle,we are no different.

[Seaf]

well, i read... a lot of the opinions so far...

and i have to say, i have grown, killed and hunted my own food. i don't think that there are equal.
things have to be able to have 3 things for it to be equal to us,

1. awareness of self, (self aware)

2. ability co control and/or shape it's own environment

3. ability to have complex communication,

easy er?

[Jmsn]

well, i read... a lot of the opinions so far...

and i have to say, i have grown, killed and hunted my own food. i don't think that there are equal.
things have to be able to have 3 things for it to be equal to us,

1. awareness of self, (self aware)

2. ability co control and/or shape it's own environment

3. ability to have complex communication,

easy er?

I am impressed simply for the fact that you hunted your own food.For this reason I am more inclined to listen to your argument and equaly as in inclined to dispute it.

1-what makes you think awareness of self is lacking in ther animals?Is it the fact that they don't have guns?Honestly,what proof have you that the lack awareness of self?I expect the answer to not be simplistic since you did hunt what you ate.In other words,no doubt you have a very philosophical insight.

2-What makes you think other animals can not do this either?Beavers can build damns and canals etc.I am fairly certain there are a plentitude of even insects if not mamammals that can do this and do so quite effectively if not more effectively than we humans.Once again,since you have the experience and insight of having hunted a living creature for food,I no doubt expect a far more deeper response on a philosophiocal level.

3-Once again what makes you think there are species thatdo not have complex forms of communications ?What research or proof have you that certain species of animals lack complex forms of communications?Is this because they lack cell phones?I mean honestly,as I stated before ,no doubt I am expecting very good evidence to back these opinions or they are as good as invalid.

Do you somehow see humans as more than just animals,if so then why?

Really I wanna know you put some thought into this and am not an average country "I shoot stuff on my free time" kinda guy with no reasoning other than ignorance.So please impress us!Sell us a convincing argument you know a thing or two about animals that maybe we dont even know!

[kuratsky]

the problem of having a mentality that our lives are higher in terms of value compared to an animal just because we can easily hunt them is that it 's purely subjective. in nature sharks tend to think the same way too simply because they lack a natural predator. if man had a far superior enemy, he will feel inferior too but it doesn't mean that he'll simply give in and let his enemy devour him. he will try to resist, fight with all his might just like what any animal would do if they have fallen prey but in the end the stronger, smarter wins however this does not degrade the worth of each animal it only means that one is simply better equipped.

[snowangel15]

i really don't no which is more important. All i no is that when you kill something for another things benefit it is still murder. I meen all those lives ruined. We arn't the only things that feel pain. We need to take in greater consideration of other reaserch techniques!!!

[EmoEmu]

Lack of proof is not a valid argument.

Animals really may have complex communication skills, but they sure dont display and use them as efficiently as humans do. That's where I think they're missing out. Animals arent unequal, I really believe that, but I think the fact they cant/dont let themselves be heard like humans do that they're.. er.. suppressed for lack of better words.

[Jepn]

Really, I think all animals should be equal to human lives but, even though I think so, I don't feel sad if I accidently kill a bug, or smash a fly. Although, if I watch lets say news, someone gets excecuted, I don't feel anything, then I hear about a dog who has been killed, I'm like WTF?!
It's a really weird subject if you ask me =/

[kuratsky]

don't worry. animals feel the same way too. elephants don't care if they've trampled a little rat or squished a fly that's been bugging it.

[Rankao]

Its all about survival. If you ever seen a colony of ants tear(literally apart of colony of bees we can see that these insects only care about the survival of their own. I believe any living being should consider its survival (especially the young) before any other species.

Its a pretty self righteous thing to say either way; However, I think that your own kind should be looked after before you put the oxygen mask on your neighbor.

[Weaboo]

If we believed animals we're equal to humans and shouldn't be killed, we would get no where in life. To progress, we need to tear down forests and ecosystems to build our houses, infrastructures, power plants. This naturally kills animals. We also eat animals for valuable nutrients especially as a source of amino acids.

And also, if we go by the "who are we to judge, we can't think ourselves better than animals" route, than why not say the same thing about plants, fungi, protists, etc. as well? They also are also living things as well.

[EightySix]

If we believed animals we're equal to humans and shouldn't be killed, we would get no where in life. To progress, we need to tear down forests and ecosystems to build our houses, infrastructures, power plants. This naturally kills animals. We also eat animals for valuable nutrients especially as a source of amino acids.

And also, if we go by the "who are we to judge, we can't think ourselves better than animals" route, than why not say the same thing about plants, fungi, protists, etc. as well? They also are also living things as well.

There are certain animals bred for human nutrition. Cows, sheeps, pigs etc...We get enough from them without having to kill the Mountain gorrilas , Elephants just for their tusks, Tigers just for their fur...We may be higher up on the food chain because of our weapons but that doesn't mean we should blatantly kill animals just because they are not equal to us.

You know, I've read in a true story article about Dolphins saving humans from Sharks and drowning...In the sea without any weapons they are above us..so why should they have saved those people? Why not just let the Shark kill the human? There have been MANY COUNTLESS NUMEROUS cases of animals saving humans. Everything from wolves to dogs...But of course according to your argument since they are not equal to us and because they are valuable nutrients we should hunt animals other than those that have been specifically bred to provide us with enough nutrition to survive. Also since they are not equal to us we should just tear down forests and build more houses because trees dont give us oxygen, they dont help cool the planet, and they are not part of a delicate ecosystem.

You forget that many cures for illnesses come from animals. Heck anti venom for snake bites comes from animals injected with venom so they build antibodies against the snake venom thereby allowing US ...humans...to survive a snake bite. But who cares lets just kill animals off because they dont serve any other purpose right? We use them in experiments all the time and they are highly vital..but of course lets just build over their habitats...lets tear down forests so we kill off animals and when we then do medical experiments lets use cows because they are SOOOO similar to humans. -_-

There are also MANY huge flaws in your arguments. Its the human greed for houses and land when they can live in apartments. Singapore doesnt have the land to waste on houses so its filled with high rise apartments. It is NOT essential to keep tearing down forests for houses. Neither is it essential to keep tearing down forests for power plants. Its because we waste so much energy..Leaving things on standby all the time is a waste of energy, using up alot of hot water is another huge waste of energy....there are so many ways to save energy and cut down costs and save forests..ITS HUMAN GREED...it has nothing to do with us being on the top of the food chain..its our selfishness...our stupidity..we spend an unnecessary extra hundred dollars on our electricity bill just so we can leave our television sets on standby and leave lights on that need not be on. Should animals die just so we can turn on 6 light bulbs instead of using just a lamp to study? We constantly use our cars leading to more oil rigs being built...Then when an oil tanker spills and kills off a whole herd of dolphins is that fair? Just because we insist on more oil, more oil tankers are built thereby increasing the chance of a spill...But of course who wants to take the bus...Who cares if a herd of dolphins die eh?

What you are talking about isn't the necessities to survive. What you are talking about is plain human stupidity that results in more forests being torn down, more animals being killed...all because we cant make little changes in our lifestyle..

[Dragon3443]

Ok but what other purpose does an animal have than to be eaten (like cows,pigs,fish,elk and other game animals)? It's not like they have some other worldly goal to reach towards. Animals lives are not equal to humans simply because the human race is very arrogant, cocky, and strictly more powerful IMHO. But still animals lives do need to be taken into consideration in the general overview of things. We can't go invade ones natural habitat to do research and such. Logging is perfectly ok, it a source of fuel (heat and whatnot) that is a renewable resource. If you harvest the seeds before cutting down the tree than you can simply re-plant.

[Weaboo]

There are certain animals bred for human nutrition. Cows, sheeps, pigs etc...We get enough from them without having to kill the Mountain gorrilas , Elephants just for their tusks, Tigers just for their fur...We may be higher up on the food chain because of our weapons but that doesn't mean we should blatantly kill animals just because they are not equal to us.

Nobody is saying we should blatantly kill animals for no reason at all. Don't start making strawmen.

You know, I've read in a true story article about Dolphins saving humans from Sharks and drowning...In the sea without any weapons they are above us..so why should they have saved those people? Why not just let the Shark kill the human? There have been MANY COUNTLESS NUMEROUS cases of animals saving humans. Everything from wolves to dogs...

We naturally use animals to our advantage. We kill pigs and cows to feed ourselves, but in the case of dolphins, if they save as many people as you claim, there can be an argument to leaving them alive since they protect lives.

But of course according to your argument since they are not equal to us and because they are valuable nutrients we should hunt animals other than those that have been specifically bred to provide us with enough nutrition to survive.


I really don't understand your argument though. We're morally justified in killing farm animals, but we're evil for hunting wild ones?


Also since they are not equal to us we should just tear down forests and build more houses because trees dont give us oxygen, they dont help cool the planet, and they are not part of a delicate ecosystem.


It's a balance. We obviously can't tear down all the trees, but we can't just sit around and do nothing, but be tree huggers. I have no qualms about tearing down forests and developing the land as long as its done moderately and wisely.



You forget that many cures for illnesses come from animals. Heck anti venom for snake bites comes from animals injected with venom so they build antibodies against the snake venom thereby allowing US ...humans...to survive a snake bite.

Okay this has to be the stupidest point you've made so far. Think about it for a minute. You're saying that we shouldn't kill animals because they can protect can us from another animal, the snake? I'm not saying we should, but if we killed all the deadly snakes we wouldn't need the anti-bodies in the first place.

But who cares lets just kill animals off because they dont serve any other purpose right? We use them in experiments all the time and they are highly vital..but of course lets just build over their habitats...lets tear down forests so we kill off animals and when we then do medical experiments lets use cows because they are SOOOO similar to humans. -_-

My, my, my, is this sarcasm I sense here?

There are also MANY huge flaws in your arguments. Its the human greed for houses and land when they can live in apartments. Singapore doesnt have the land to waste on houses so its filled with high rise apartments. It is NOT essential to keep tearing down forests for houses. Neither is it essential to keep tearing down forests for power plants. Its because we waste so much energy..Leaving things on standby all the time is a waste of energy, using up alot of hot water is another huge waste of energy....there are so many ways to save energy and cut down costs and save forests..ITS HUMAN GREED...it has nothing to do with us being on the top of the food chain..its our selfishness...our stupidity..we spend an unnecessary extra hundred dollars on our electricity bill just so we can leave our television sets on standby and leave lights on that need not be on. Should animals die just so we can turn on 6 light bulbs instead of using just a lamp to study? We constantly use our cars leading to more oil rigs being built...Then when an oil tanker spills and kills off a whole herd of dolphins is that fair? Just because we insist on more oil, more oil tankers are built thereby increasing the chance of a spill...But of course who wants to take the bus...Who cares if a herd of dolphins die eh?

Oh, so now your blaming humanity for this eh? Don't be a hypocrite, you probably do most of the things that you listed. Is going on OneManga necessary because its wasting your "precious energy" and destroying the environment. So what if you take the bus, you're still polluting the environment. Again, do you really need to bus down to the movie theatre or to a friend's house? It's not like you would die.

Humanity is not as dumb as you think. We've already realized that this can't go on forever, so we're developing new ways of producing energy that can allow us to keep living large like we do right now once oil runs out.

What you are talking about isn't the necessities to survive. What you are talking about is plain human stupidity that results in more forests being torn down, more animals being killed...all because we cant make little changes in our lifestyle..

ANGST!!!!!! OMG HUMANS ARE TEH STUPID AND EVIL. The fact is even if we did follow all your recommendations, the impact will be small. Sure some animals and ecosystems will be saved, but a lot more would be destroyed for the sake of progress. The main source of slash and burn these days are in poor countries anyways. The western developed world have high regulations and standards on randomly clear cutting forests. In the North American logging industry you have to replant the trees you cut down. You're not going to deny third world farmers their lively hood are you now?

Anyways, how did this become a debate about the environment?

[EightySix]

There are certain animals bred for human nutrition. Cows, sheeps, pigs etc...We get enough from them without having to kill the Mountain gorrilas , Elephants just for their tusks, Tigers just for their fur...We may be higher up on the food chain because of our weapons but that doesn't mean we should blatantly kill animals just because they are not equal to us.

Nobody is saying we should blatantly kill animals for no reason at all. Don't start making strawmen.

You know, I've read in a true story article about Dolphins saving humans from Sharks and drowning...In the sea without any weapons they are above us..so why should they have saved those people? Why not just let the Shark kill the human? There have been MANY COUNTLESS NUMEROUS cases of animals saving humans. Everything from wolves to dogs...

We naturally use animals to our advantage. We kill pigs and cows to feed ourselves, but in the case of dolphins, if they save as many people as you claim, there can be an argument to leaving them alive since they protect lives.

But of course according to your argument since they are not equal to us and because they are valuable nutrients we should hunt animals other than those that have been specifically bred to provide us with enough nutrition to survive.


I really don't understand your argument though. We're morally justified in killing farm animals, but we're evil for hunting wild ones?


Also since they are not equal to us we should just tear down forests and build more houses because trees dont give us oxygen, they dont help cool the planet, and they are not part of a delicate ecosystem.


It's a balance. We obviously can't tear down all the trees, but we can't just sit around and do nothing, but be tree huggers. I have no qualms about tearing down forests and developing the land as long as its done moderately and wisely.



You forget that many cures for illnesses come from animals. Heck anti venom for snake bites comes from animals injected with venom so they build antibodies against the snake venom thereby allowing US ...humans...to survive a snake bite.

Okay this has to be the stupidest point you've made so far. Think about it for a minute. You're saying that we shouldn't kill animals because they can protect can us from another animal, the snake? I'm not saying we should, but if we killed all the deadly snakes we wouldn't need the anti-bodies in the first place.

But who cares lets just kill animals off because they dont serve any other purpose right? We use them in experiments all the time and they are highly vital..but of course lets just build over their habitats...lets tear down forests so we kill off animals and when we then do medical experiments lets use cows because they are SOOOO similar to humans. -_-

My, my, my, is this sarcasm I sense here?

There are also MANY huge flaws in your arguments. Its the human greed for houses and land when they can live in apartments. Singapore doesnt have the land to waste on houses so its filled with high rise apartments. It is NOT essential to keep tearing down forests for houses. Neither is it essential to keep tearing down forests for power plants. Its because we waste so much energy..Leaving things on standby all the time is a waste of energy, using up alot of hot water is another huge waste of energy....there are so many ways to save energy and cut down costs and save forests..ITS HUMAN GREED...it has nothing to do with us being on the top of the food chain..its our selfishness...our stupidity..we spend an unnecessary extra hundred dollars on our electricity bill just so we can leave our television sets on standby and leave lights on that need not be on. Should animals die just so we can turn on 6 light bulbs instead of using just a lamp to study? We constantly use our cars leading to more oil rigs being built...Then when an oil tanker spills and kills off a whole herd of dolphins is that fair? Just because we insist on more oil, more oil tankers are built thereby increasing the chance of a spill...But of course who wants to take the bus...Who cares if a herd of dolphins die eh?

Oh, so now your blaming humanity for this eh? Don't be a hypocrite, you probably do most of the things that you listed. Is going on OneManga necessary because its wasting your "precious energy" and destroying the environment. So what if you take the bus, you're still polluting the environment. Again, do you really need to bus down to the movie theatre or to a friend's house? It's not like you would die.

Humanity is not as dumb as you think. We've already realized that this can't go on forever, so we're developing new ways of producing energy that can allow us to keep living large like we do right now once oil runs out.

What you are talking about isn't the necessities to survive. What you are talking about is plain human stupidity that results in more forests being torn down, more animals being killed...all because we cant make little changes in our lifestyle..

ANGST!!!!!! OMG HUMANS ARE TEH STUPID AND EVIL. The fact is even if we did follow all your recommendations, the impact will be small. Sure some animals and ecosystems will be saved, but a lot more would be destroyed for the sake of progress. The main source of slash and burn these days are in poor countries anyways. The western developed world have high regulations and standards on randomly clear cutting forests. In the North American logging industry you have to replant the trees you cut down. You're not going to deny third world farmers their lively hood are you now?

Anyways, how did this become a debate about the environment?



1. Blinding colour scheme.

2. "We naturally use animals to our advantage. We kill pigs and cows to feed ourselves, but in the case of dolphins, if they save as many people as you claim, there can be an argument to leaving them alive since they protect lives. "

And yet we slaughter them by the herds.


3. "Okay this has to be the stupidest point you've made so far. Think about it for a minute. You're saying that we shouldn't kill animals because they can protect can us from another animal, the snake? I'm not saying we should, but if we killed all the deadly snakes we wouldn't need the anti-bodies in the first place."

Simply because there is a balance. You kill off a predator and the prey multiplies and becomes a huge nuisance. It has happened many times in the past where something brought in to counter a pest or problem has turned into a much bigger problem.

Also, in case you didnt know, killing off all the deadly snakes is about the stupidest suggestion to put out just because I stated that anti-venom was used to counter snake poison. Why? Just google the words "Snake Venom in Medicine" and you'll see why.

4. "
Oh, so now your blaming humanity for this eh? Don't be a hypocrite, you probably do most of the things that you listed. Is going on OneManga necessary because its wasting your "precious energy" and destroying the environment. So what if you take the bus, you're still polluting the environment. Again, do you really need to bus down to the movie theatre or to a friend's house? It's not like you would die.

Humanity is not as dumb as you think. We've already realized that this can't go on forever, so we're developing new ways of producing energy that can allow us to keep living large like we do right now once oil runs out.
"

So who would you blame then? Plus I do believe in what I stated. Sure I may log onto OneManga but I always make sure I turn off all standby buttons, consume as little hot water as possible during a bath and I try take the bus as much as possible. Everything I stated is things I practise..Hypocrite? No. And yes its not like I would die having to not bus down to the mall but like I already explained earlier, its a chain of events. The more people who insist on using cars, the more oil tankers oil companies have to use thereby increasing the chances of an oil spill in the sea which would easily kill off a huge amount of marine life in that area. Small changes can make big difference if many people decided to practise it. I didnt say cars should be taken off the road and that we should all ride on bicycles did I? I'm not a huge fan of tree-hugging but I know that my little luxury of driving down to the mall is not worth the lives of a herd of dolphins killed by an oil spill. Yes, its easy to say that I could not predict if driving to the mall will cause dolphins to die but if everyone around the world started reducing their petrol consumption, then less oil tankers would be needed. A 100 tankers would be reduced to 80, thereby taking away 20 chances of there being an oil spill..

5. "
ANGST!!!!!! OMG HUMANS ARE TEH STUPID AND EVIL. The fact is even if we did follow all your recommendations, the impact will be small. Sure some animals and ecosystems will be saved, but a lot more would be destroyed for the sake of progress. The main source of slash and burn these days are in poor countries anyways. The western developed world have high regulations and standards on randomly clear cutting forests. In the North American logging industry you have to replant the trees you cut down. You're not going to deny third world farmers their lively hood are you now? "

Small changes made by billions of humans will do anything but make a small impact. A cent a day saved from turning off all electrical appliances and done by a billion people amounts to 3.56 billion dollars a year. You say third world farmers would have their livelihood denied..if we all donate that one cent a day to a fund for them, it would easily feed a country in Africa for months. It could easily save tens of millions of lives from starvation. Besides all the animals that would not have to die for the sake of energy companies expanding by tearing down forests. So I dont see how small changes wont make an impact. Or can you not even spare $3.56 a year? So yea, I'd have to say it would make an impact. Saving a whole forest that could potentially be the habitat of an animal that could hold the cure for a deadly disease...sure it sounds far fetched but 100 years ago who knew snake venom could actually turn out to be so useful in medicine? Specially a cure for some of the most deadly diseases out there.

Also it didn't become a debate about the environment. The environment is the habitat of the animals. We destroy a forest, we kill off maybe a thousand animals. So yea they go hand in hand. You cant destroy an environment without harming what lives in it.

[Weaboo]

1. Blinding colour scheme.

2. "We naturally use animals to our advantage. We kill pigs and cows to feed ourselves, but in the case of dolphins, if they save as many people as you claim, there can be an argument to leaving them alive since they protect lives. "

And yet we slaughter them by the herds.

Slaughter who by the herds? Cows? They were raised to be killed and then consumed than that's their purpose. If an animal has a use to be kept alive than we shouldn't kill them by the herds.


3. "Okay this has to be the stupidest point you've made so far. Think about it for a minute. You're saying that we shouldn't kill animals because they can protect can us from another animal, the snake? I'm not saying we should, but if we killed all the deadly snakes we wouldn't need the anti-bodies in the first place."

Simply because there is a balance. You kill off a predator and the prey multiplies and becomes a huge nuisance. It has happened many times in the past where something brought in to counter a pest or problem has turned into a much bigger problem.


Also, in case you didnt know, killing off all the deadly snakes is about the stupidest suggestion to put out just because I stated that anti-venom was used to counter snake poison. Why? Just google the words "Snake Venom in Medicine" and you'll see why.


You completely missed my point back there. Don't give me ecology lectures to compensate. Your original reasoning was flawed by saying that we should keep all animals alive since they can produce anti-toxins against snakes. I was poking a hole in your original argument, not advocating for the destruction of all snakes.

Your blindingly obvious 5th grade ecology lecture still doesn't defeat what I said. If killing predators would make pests a nuisance and degrade our standard of living than we should keep them alive. However, that still doesn't mean that Animal life is equal to human life, which is the whole point of the debate.


4. "
Oh, so now your blaming humanity for this eh? Don't be a hypocrite, you probably do most of the things that you listed. Is going on OneManga necessary because its wasting your "precious energy" and destroying the environment. So what if you take the bus, you're still polluting the environment. Again, do you really need to bus down to the movie theatre or to a friend's house? It's not like you would die.

Humanity is not as dumb as you think. We've already realized that this can't go on forever, so we're developing new ways of producing energy that can allow us to keep living large like we do right now once oil runs out.
"

So who would you blame then? Plus I do believe in what I stated. Sure I may log onto OneManga but I always make sure I turn off all standby buttons, consume as little hot water as possible during a bath and I try take the bus as much as possible. Everything I stated is things I practise..Hypocrite? No. And yes its not like I would die having to not bus down to the mall but like I already explained earlier, its a chain of events. The more people who insist on using cars, the more oil tankers oil companies have to use thereby increasing the chances of an oil spill in the sea which would easily kill off a huge amount of marine life in that area. Small changes can make big difference if many people decided to practise it. I didnt say cars should be taken off the road and that we should all ride on bicycles did I? I'm not a huge fan of tree-hugging but I know that my little luxury of driving down to the mall is not worth the lives of a herd of dolphins killed by an oil spill. Yes, its easy to say that I could not predict if driving to the mall will cause dolphins to die but if everyone around the world started reducing their petrol consumption, then less oil tankers would be needed. A 100 tankers would be reduced to 80, thereby taking away 20 chances of there being an oil spill..

So you still want to keep all your luxuries such as surfing the web or driving, but you'll still do it anyways despite your claim that its killing animals. Sounds hypocritical to me. Let's face it by putting your computer on standby, you are not absolving your "sins." The amount of energy you save in all of your techniques will be dwarfed by how much you use every day to satisfy yourself.

Again, we've realized that destroying the ecosystem isn't good for animals or humans. That's why you see people today trying to find renewable energy sources. This doesn't mean that animals are equal to humans; it just means that its mutually beneficial for us to live together on earth.

4. "
5. "
[B]ANGST!!!!!! OMG HUMANS ARE TEH STUPID AND EVIL. The fact is even if we did follow all your recommendations, the impact will be small. Sure some animals and ecosystems will be saved, but a lot more would be destroyed for the sake of progress. The main source of slash and burn these days are in poor countries anyways. The western developed world have high regulations and standards on randomly clear cutting forests. In the North American logging industry you have to replant the trees you cut down. You're not going to deny third world farmers their lively hood are you now? "

Small changes made by billions of humans will do anything but make a small impact. A cent a day saved from turning off all electrical appliances and done by a billion people amounts to 3.56 billion dollars a year. You say third world farmers would have their livelihood denied..if we all donate that one cent a day to a fund for them, it would easily feed a country in Africa for months. It could easily save tens of millions of lives from starvation. Besides all the animals that would not have to die for the sake of energy companies expanding by tearing down forests. So I dont see how small changes wont make an impact. Or can you not even spare $3.56 a year? So yea, I'd have to say it would make an impact. Saving a whole forest that could potentially be the habitat of an animal that could hold the cure for a deadly disease...sure it sounds far fetched but 100 years ago who knew snake venom could actually turn out to be so useful in medicine? Specially a cure for some of the most deadly diseases out there.

Also it didn't become a debate about the environment. The environment is the habitat of the animals. We destroy a forest, we kill off maybe a thousand animals. So yea they go hand in hand. You cant destroy an environment without harming what lives in it.

Seriously stop using your strawman. I have never said that I never supported razing down forests and destroying ecosystems. This debate is about whether or not animals are equal to humans. Just because I don't think they are doesn't mean I support wonton destruction and killing of their habitats for no reason.

You claim that some animals can help us cure disease, and I don't disagree with you. But also think about this, if we kill all the Anopeles Mosquitoes, the carriers of Malaria, in Africa, we can save millions of lives each year. Would you support this pre-planned genocide of a species?

Also about 3rd world farmers, don't delude yourself that giving 1 dollar a day is going to magically make their situation all better. They'll still be living in an underdeveloped and poor area. All that 1 dollar does is give them a loaf of bread for a day and once that bread is gone, they'll go back to starving. They need to destroy forests to create farms and houses; are you going to say that they're evil and stupid for doing that?

[mattchase00]

Sorry, I would have to say that if it wasn't for years of technology, intellegence, or "gadgets". Humans wouldn't be better then any other animal that was hunted by animals. Do you honestly believe that any other animal would give you any kind of mercy, if they were afraid of us?

Animals are not equal to us, and we as humans have spent the last 100,000 to 200,000 years climbing the food chain, and evolution to say that in this world of eat or be eaten, that we are equal to other animals.

And for people saying that animals are some how higher then us because a few humans dont have decent morals (ie beating animals, beating other humans, ect) is just plain stupid. I hope your alone with a tiger one day and he decides to eat you.

My guess is that most of you aren't very in touch with nature? Anyone who says that war is a human invention is full of ****. Ants are incredibly vicious to other species, arround there territory. If an enemy army tries to come in, ants will litterally rip each other apart limb by limb. 2 or 3 ants with snap another one in pieces. Alot of other animals fight over territory, not as prolonged as wars, but still they fight none the less.

Now back to that tiger, I'm sure while he is choking you by the neck and making you bleed profusivly, and you lying there wishing for a quicker death. You would realize that domesticated animals don't have it all that bad. Cows for instance would do the same thing domesticated or not... eat grass all day... travel in packs. Produce young and what not. We just put a fence arround them, and kill them when the time is right. Killing is apart of nature, and when you realize that the better.

One thing that I dont agree with is steriod usage in animals, and severly limited space conditions that they have.

But humans lives > animals, because we are the ruling force in the world, and that in itself is the true force of nature.

[Dragon3443]

Once I will say this killing animals for food is FINE!

These animals don't have any "life long quest" other than to be eaten.

[kakourgos]

humans are no way equal to men i read on o pst before that doflins saved a man and that dolfins in the see are more powerfull to a human without a weapon . so i wonder do you know what makes us humans special ?? IT IS THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE ENVIROMENT THAT WE LIVE SO IT IS HARMLESS TO US . so i supose that is you leave a person to the see form longer than an hour it will find a way to beat up every posible enemy in the see

[kakourgos]

humans are no way equal to men i read on o pst before that doflins saved a man and that dolfins in the see are more powerfull to a human without a weapon . so i wonder do you know what makes us humans special ?? IT IS THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE ENVIROMENT THAT WE LIVE SO IT IS HARMLESS TO US . so i supose that is you leave a person to the see form longer than an hour it will find a way to beat up every posible enemy in the see

i ment to animals not to men

[MoonSideMKDS]

I doubt the concept of equality exists outside of the mind.

This is a dumb debate. It needs to be retitled.

[kuratsky]

the way we value things including humans is purely subjective. i didn't think of this before because i was so engrossed with the notion that i have in me the power to decide the fate of every animal. It's like this i have a gold ring right now and i wont sell it for just a dollar but if there was a war going on and food is scarce, hell i'll trade it for a bun of bread. the same is true as to how we treat other people, we don't kill people over food or any other necessity because society tells us that it is unnecessary since everything is available for us, we only need to earn money and buy what we want/need. if it were centuries or millennia ago it's ok to kill people of other tribes without the need to feel remorseful, life was hard back then and people fought over anything and they wouldn't even care if it were a man or an animal that they have slaughtered. if it isn't for the advancement we have achieved so far we would succumb to our basic instincts.

another fine example is the way pet owners treat their beloved pets. they grieve over the misfortunes of their pets but they never weep over the death of an estranged family. people value things which they deem important to them whether psychologically or physically.

[bushwhacker2k]

IMO animal lives are equal to human lives. Humans just consider themselves superior with words like sentience and intelligence and use that to justify butchering animals or forcing animals to amuse them.

^ That's just how I see it, if you are pet-owner and you love your pet, good for you, PLEASE do not tell me.

[Jmsn]

There isn't an equality between animal live and human lives.The value of a creature is determined by it's emphasis on survival.The peak of survivability stems from technology and the ability to manipulate one's surroundings.In fact,one can say that humanity is so smart and crafty that it is an unfair advantage over the rest of the animal kingdom.Does it justify the slaughter and abuses over animals?By personal morals I'd call such acts detestable but it justifies us doing whatever atrocious acts we want to them.The only rule in the world and ordered society is power and domination.Because we have power,we can do whatever the hell we want!Not a good way of thinking but humanity has followed this patterns since time began.

A creature's value is determined by how much power it holds over something (in humans case our environments) and how dominant it can be (with guns,bombs and other weapons technology,a jungle full of lions is no threat).What more need we do to prove our dominance than to drop a nuclear warhead?Exactly!We can even manipulate microscopic things such as viruses,bacteria,and sub-atomic particles.So who's superior to whom?Can I say humans are superior to everything else as the final answer?

Even things we rely on can be cloned for our convenience or science can find or develop a substitute.How perfect are we?Our only downfall is hanging on to useless axioms,something animals need not be limited by.Still ,we dominate!

[Hime_Takamura]

I like animals and I think they should have their own fighting chance for life. I do think that animal testing is cruel, but without it, many humans might die... I guess I don't really have a stand on this issue.... ><

[Jmsn]

The question then is ,is an animal or the well being of animals worth the sacrifice if it betters human life?Take into account,even if you do like animals,or even if you hate humans,you still are a human being and can benefit from this testing.

[Alpha&Omega]

The question then is ,is an animal or the well being of animals worth the sacrifice if it betters human life?Take into account,even if you do like animals,or even if you hate humans,you still are a human being and can benefit from this testing.

Taking that into account, and my love for animals, I came to this conclusion.

Yes perhaps testing on animals for medicine that might greatly enhance our lives isn't so bad.

But more often then not, medicine that works on the critters.... Doesn't work on us.

No matter how good the substitute animal is... It never is a human. Shouldn't scientists have learned from their mistakes and focus on trying to find a better substitute as well? But until then I see it as a necessary evil.

And even for the beneficial testing, I think that we should give the animals proper treatment and care. Most of those animals are often put in small cages and whatnot, making their lives even more pathetic then it already is. The least we could do is treat them properly and even perhaps give them some good care-takers.
Getting attached to them might not be such a smart idea knowing what faith awaits them, but at least care for them to make their lives a bit better is only fair for what we take in return.

As for animal testing for cosmetics... That is something that does sicken me. It isn't beneficial for humanity, it's only to enhance superficial values of society. If those frigging cosmetics depending barbies and ken's want to have the newest of the newest so badly, why don't they opt for labrats.

And on a last note for our value being higher then that of an animal cus we have the best survivability of all... Cockroaches and rats would be right behind us... Perhaps those cockroaches even before us >_>

[Jmsn]

I'd agree, cockroaches surpass us.Even after nuclear holocaust they'd exist I bet.Rats not so much,they'd die off after us since a big chunk of them live off of human food and waste.

Was wondering though ,does our killing capability give us an advantage.At which point does this dominance become the double edge sword perpetuating our demise?That I don't know!

[mattchase00]

How about a new approach on this debate?

Is anything truly ever equal? I mean even among us humans. Like does Saddam's life = an Orphaned person's life? Doesn't this debate seem a little flawed to you?

Do you consider you food your equal? would you willingly eat another person? Do you understand that we are animals too? How about if you were about to get eaten by the lion, do you honestly believe that the lion is going to stop and ponder about morals before it eats you?Or maybe do you see a snake killing a rat for food, justifies us killing the snake for food? Where do you draw the line?

Maybe, you got lost on the big circle of things, of what being in the food chain really means... just because we are at the "top" doesnt mean that we aren't eaten. We eat animals, eventually die, then worms / maggots eat us, then other animals eat them, then we eat the animals ect. (thats if you dont include the trend of burying dead people in tightly closed caskets)

Flow chart form*:

Humans -----> Animals
Parasites ------> Humans
Animal -----> Parasites

* "------>" is read as eats.

Equality is a human made concept. i.e. we have the same rights as other humans ect. Animals have no notion of this, nor do they have morals. Even if equality is "achieved", do you honestly feel equal to a retarded or handicap person? Could you ever fully treat them as equals to you? If we as humans are = to animals, then are you equal to einstien and his intellegence? I think not, therefore this questions is flawed.

Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that animals deserve better treatment. Like how chickens are mass produced, ect. Within cages too close together, and where they use the restroom on top of each other. Also there is probably a more human way to kill cows ect. Also, Don't believe in kicking cats, like a football, upwards off the roof. Thats having morals, and having an actual understanding of nature outside of our own "concret jungles" where money buys everything.

[Our Man Jack]

Do I think an animal's life is equal to that of a human...? Let me put it this way: If I'm driving down the street, and all of a sudden some random guy and his dog come running out into the middle of the road, and I'm going to fast to stop, I'd do my best to avoid hitting the guy, even if it mean I'd have to hit the dog. That being said, if I did hit the dog, I'd feel horribly depressed after the fact. Just as much as if I'd hit the guy, I'd think.

So while I may feel that a Human's life does hold slightly more value than that of an animal, I still think that the life of an animal is important.

And, for the record, I like meat. Alot. Except for veal. That's just sick and cruel. Lamb, too.I'd agree, cockroaches surpass us.Even after nuclear holocaust they'd exist I bet.Rats not so much,they'd die off after us since a big chunk of them live off of human food and waste.

Sorry, no. Cockroaches, like rats, also depend on humans and other living creatures for their survival. While it is true that they could survive a nuclear holocaust, without a strong human presence for them to mooch heat and food from, they'd probably all die out within a short while. [

[Iamsad]

Well for me it would depend on the person in question. I don't believe every human life is equal to one another.

For me it would be:

Humans > Animals > Plants > Garbage

Not to say people should be allowed to kill their pets for the fun of it, but I do believe that a human life holds slightly more value than any other animal's life.

O, by garbage I mean the people like the ones who are rotting away in our jails.

[Jammerjoint]

"Garbage" is human too. Don't assume all people in jail are automatically murderers or pyschopaths. In fact, in many cases, they are smarter and better suited for survival than other humans. Then again, that's not to say there's a bunch of trash in jail. All in all, we are all human and equal in that respect.

Perhaps there is a dependency issue also? Without plants, the base of the energy pyramid, all the animals would fall. Without things as simple as bacteria, would biomass recycle at all? I'm reluctant to continue this argument because it appears impossible, but I still feel it should be brought into consideration.

A want to survive, I believe, is not something unequally distributed. Rather, I think we confuse it with a capacity of expression, which is in turn limited by a creature's dominance. And so, that brings us to the next question: What is dominance?

Dominance could mean the creature's control over its environment. In such a case, humans are the obvious choice. Dominance could be its ability to continue living despite whatever damage it receives. In that case, perhaps cockroaches? But then again, if one shot a cockroach with a gun, it'd die, whereas humans can continue living. Some might argue that a human would die without healthcare. However, is not this an invention of humans, and thus included in its arsenal for survival?

Maybe, we could determine dominance by the survivor from a conflict. If cockroaches decided to start trying to kill humans, I doubt they'd get very far. On the other hand, hyenas can devour humans whole. Humans can nuke a forest, but does that really count? At this point, I think the question of the value of a life has been distorted into who can survive best. A nuke, despite being a human creation, is not part of a human life.

What do we do with our lives that makes them more valuable? Many of us waste away doing nothing significant, playing only the part as one tiny fraction of a percent of the people that support the greater man's achievements. Can we call this important? Surely if all the steel workers died, there'd be a problem at hand. But if you look at each individual, what do they really contribute? There are always extraordinary ones among them, but even then, no matter how many cities they conquer or how many lives they change, do they even themselves comprehend what they've done? A life, I think, is about more than just accomplishment, it is about comprehending and changing oneself.

An animal might be limited by the size of its brain, or its certain deprivation of roaming free in untouched lands. Could this be an excuse for their lack of performance of great deeds? Then again, if I counted them as one race, think of how many deer the lions have killed, how many great journeys the birds have made across the sky, how many countless corpses have bacteria decomposed? Accomplishments like these are often misrepresented. They are there, and they are immovable. Can the human race match up to that? For the most part, we've succeeded utterly in destroying each other. But still, our current state of relative control is undeniable.

All said, I do not think we are so special that we can prioritize ourselves. I think that our lives are equal. Lives, it was once said, can not be added or subtracted. They are all precious, all potent. I rest my case on our equality.

[Eveonder Maelstrom]

We can argue all we want about our opinions playing devil's advocate and etc. But in the end, I wonder what we really think? Let's put up a hypothetical situation. Though I hate hypothetical situations I think this one works quite nicely.

Guess what? An omnipotent being suddenly appears. He tells you that you have to make a choice and cause something to die. You gives you a choice between any random human and any random non-human. What would you pick? You'd pick the non-human right?

Anyways, a random human could be yourself. You are human and on some biological hardwired level, you can't deny being human since you're essentially a creation constructed from various molecules based on a plan laid out on DNA. All other humans are similar to yourself. Your biological function is to multiply yourself or parts of yourself, other humans contain more parts of yourself than non-humans, thus for you humans hold a greater value. Similarly, since mammals are closer to you than other animals, you hold mammals over the non-mammals on some level. And you can extrapolate from there.

In any case, even if some of us think that we aren't so special. (Indeed we aren't special.) We value ourselves over non-humans because that is writ as the very nature of being alive and human.

In conclusion, no animal lives are not equal to human lives, not to us anyways. Maybe to the omnipotent being mentioned above but we are trapped in flesh.

[SHIUMI]

I think, that all living things should be equal, but isnt, I mean, its not that animals don't know that when they get caught theylle be eaten or killed thats why hey run, it's just that tney cant escape, but I wonder if something much more intellegent, powerfull, superior than us existed and they would hunt us , kill us in order to eat us what would we feel

[Jmsn]

I think we humans have every right and should have every right to elevate ourselves above animals.Maybe it would inspire people to be more caring with each other and show less animal -like behavior.However I feel that should not give us a right to abuse animals.

This thread did make me think though,with the way we can add things like vitamins and proteins to food,there's no excuse for us ,a developed nation to rely so heavily on meat,its disgusting.As many foods as we can use to replace meat,what reason have we to kill animals for food when there's literally a million other things to eat?

Really the fact that we mass consume large quantities of beef,chicken,fish,pork and everything else is an abuse on animals when you take into account their treatment.Sure in nature predators kill and eat prey.However,if we are to view ourselves as somehow above animals,we have no need to feed into that cycle by eating meat when such a diet is not necessary and feasting on animals is no longer necessary since we're a developed nation right?There are a lot of other sources for protein out there.

[southernrag]

Well first of all the term animal are not used correctly because we humans are also animals ourselves, so we can't just use to term animal to set ourselves apart from them, non-human's would be a better term.

I'm gonna put aside the values and beliefs right now... and just use the terms natural selection and evolution. These in nature are what gives animals power and status, in nature there are no such thing as equal, there is only survival of the fittest. A lion would never look at a deer and say "hey were equal but since I'm hungry can I eat you please" the lion would just jump the deer and tear it to smithereens.

We humans are now the most dominant species so we don't look at non-humans the same as us. This is just the natural order of things or the food chain for a better understanding. If you really think that non-humans have as much rights as us then just don't eat animals at all. Vegetarians themselves are ironic and don't even make sense, they say they don't want to kill life so they switch to eating fruits and vegetables but guess what fruits and vegetables are also alive and don't want to be eaten... So what are you gonna do? don't eat anything and just die so that the non-humans would respect you, I'm sorry but all the predators would be eating you now since your weak. The world isn't as easy as we see it is, its a dog eat dog world out there and when your in the brink of death all your morals and beliefs will vanish and your natural instincts will kick in so that you can survive, yes the one that betrays you would be your own body as it doesn't wanna die... Sorry if this sounded rude, I'm not targeting anyone just the point and question at hand.

[MetalKyuubi]

In terms of nature as a whole- yes they are, everything kills/dies/eats another living thing/is consumed by a living thing. In terms of human nature- no. It's in our instinct to value human life above all else- if we see roadkill when we're in the car, we don't grieve it or feel sick or feel particularly alarmed as we would by a human corpse. Then there's the argument we eat certain animals, and use others for domestic purposes. We care about these animals, and in many cases grow to love them like a family member- which is the only case when animal life is equal to a human's, and even then it's strictly subjective.

So while in nature we are all equal, in our civilised world animals don't come first- and that's how we're evaluating it, if in our society an animal's life is worth as much as ours, so no, I'm afraid animal lives are not equal to humans'.

[screaminloon]

I apologize for the following giant post.

From what i've read, it appears that the common argument is that humans are more valuable than animals because we are "more intelligent". Well, before I get into the details, let me say this. It is not for humans to decide whether we are more valuable than any other species (im not saying leave it to god, as I am not a religious person). Of course most of us will choose a human life over something like a dog's life. The reason is that we can relate to other humans. We all feel fear the way other humans do, and because of that, we tell ourselves that other humans must feel the same way we do about death and pain.

Now, im not sure if this has been said before. To be honest, im too lazy to read through all of the pages just to see if anyone has said what I am about to. The thing about humans is that we regard intelligence as valuable. And yet, we mock those who are smarter than us, and we kill each other as mindlessly as any other species. The way I see it is that the ability to say "I dont want to die" does not make us more valuable than another species. If this were the case, fear would be the most valuable trait in humans.

There is a common saying "Insects will be here long after we're gone". Insects dont even have the ability to think "If I go in there, I might be in danger". They dont have medicine. They dont have electricity. They dont have anything. And yet, they'll almost definitely be here long after we're gone. The reason is that humans are self destructive. We either destroy ourselves, or let other things destroy us that we can prevent. So if I had to choose between a human or another animal, in terms of overall ability to survive, I would choose other animals. In my own opinion, I would not say I would always choose humans. Odds are I would not choose a murderer over my dog, just because the murderer doesnt want to die. Yet at the same time, I would never choose an animal over a person who loves and is loved in return.

Here is another way to think about it. We are the "most intelligent species on Earth". We use this intelligence to build weapons and destroy each other, rather than advance our species. Sure, we have technology and medicine now, but if you think about how long humans have existed, most of our existence has been spent looking for ways to destroy each other and keep each other down. If you really think about it, one of the major reasons for our technology improving is war. Through building weapons and looking for ways to protect ourselves from other humans, we've advanced our technology.

In terms of intelligence, humans have the ability to be the most intelligent species on Earth. And yet, we kill each other in the name of god. Is that like saying a parent would tell one child to kill their sibling because they disobeyed the parent? How about in cases of the same basic beliefs calling God by different names? If you called your parent by his or her name, instead of dad or mom, or dad or mom instead of their name, would the parent punish you? Not likely, because it doesnt matter (at least a good parent wouldnt punish you).

We believe in something, at least in my opinion, almost completely illogical, and yet we are the superior species? We also kill for money and power, which, to an intelligent race, should be two extremely unimportant things. If we are so intelligent, and we care about each other enough to put humans above other animals, then why is it we let some humans suffer and die while others live almost too well. We are, by nature, a selfish, illogical species, that uses our intelligence to achieve the wrong goals.

Animals live and die for us. They feed and protect us. In some cases, they even give us shelter and comfort. So, why are their lives less valuable than ours? If you think about it, almost every other species would do BETTER without humans. If the "inferior" species died off, humans would die as well (if nothing else, a majority of us would die when we would fight over who should get what's left of the meat on the planet, rather than search for a better source). And this happens despite the fact that humans should have the ability to survive off of other sources.

Im not saying that the human race is terrible and should disappear. As a matter of fact, when we use our intelligence for the right reasons, we can be the most valuable species on the planet. If we took even half of our time away from pointless wars of greed and belief and used those same resources to look for cures for diseases and ways to protect ourselves from, as nerdy as this may be, species that come from other planets (assuming they are as warlike as humanity, it's likely that they would destroy us), we wouldnt need to kill to survive. We would live longer, happier lives.

The truth is that humanity disappoints me, so im a bit biased. I want the time spent in wars to be spent on medicine, so people dont need to die from diseases that could have been cured long ago. The way I see it is that other animals and insects may not have the ability to say "please dont kill me", but that doesnt mean they are less valuable, or dont want to live. Is that like saying someone who is mute or mentally handicapped, who cant say "Dont kill me", is less valuable than another human? Of course not.

In the grand scheme of things (nonreligiously), all life holds the same value. We all live and die, and, at least for now, almost every living thing on the planet lives to survive. The difference is, humans live to survive and more. We are greedy, and take more than what we need. Which is why we hunt for sport. To me, hunting for fun is disgusting. I'd love to see what humans would do if a random species started hunting us. Are we allowed to say "You cant kill us because we are intelligent"? I dont think so. That's not a very convincing argument to a "superior species". And better yet, should that species have the right to kill us because they are more intelligent? Should they be able to say "since you cant defend yourselves from us, you deserve to die"?

The only argument I can think of against this is that all living things hunt to live. Whales/dolphins/lions play with their food before eating it. And that's because, according to humans, they are inferior to us. I know something similar was said a few posts above my own, but i'll repeat it. We cant call ourselves superior, and then use the excuse "well...other species do it, so it's okay when we do!".

I hope my post makes sense, without offending anyone. I just think of everything as logically as possible, without letting blind belief and emotion over ride my thought process.

[Halfbaked1]

I think that animals shouldn't be worth more than humans, but in the inimitable words of Ellen Ripley, "You don't see them screwin each other over a percentage." I mean we are supposed to be the pinnacle of evolution, the ultimate result of this worlds creation, and yet we still love to slaughter each other en-masse and the lil critters along the way. Just seems like we aren't using those big brains we developed for much more tha a convenient way to keep our ears from slappin together in the middle.

I sometimes even doubt the majority of us are truly sentient. I mean take a beagle puppy and a two month old baby (or however old they are to crawl). Now set a candle in front of them. Both will go up and touch the candle if unhindered. Now wait a day and do this again. Odds are pretty darn good that the puppy will go up, sniff the candle and leave it alone, while the baby is more likely to touch the thing again with the same results. Learning from the consequences of our mistakes is supposed to be what makes us sentient, so how come some animals are better at it than us?

[Lone_ant]

The thing is the problem here is "value".

There is no ultimate objective point of view that we can use to judge the value of things. For example in Eveonder's hypothetical scenario holds true if you haven't formed any special bond with some non-human (and not even then..). Odds are that not everyone will choose the life of some heinous criminal over the life of a dog life-companion that has saved your life before.

[Jiraiya-RosarioVampire]

an animals life is just as important as a human life if you look at the whole picture we as humans are just another species of animal

[marzoqi]

God created human as superior than any living so we accept it, but that doesn't mean we can harm them as we wish , God gave us the right to use them as means of traveling and eating or wearing its just alright but harming like not feeding them or hitting them with sticks is prohibited

EDIT : anyone say that humans were monkeys they are wrong , our first father Adam was created human so there is no discussions about it

[animegeek01]

animal lives are just as important and equal to human lives end of story i mean they have feelings too, just because they can't talk doesn't mean they don't feel and it doesn't mean that there any less equal to us. and humans we really aren't all that

[screaminloon]

Marzoqi...if Adam was our first father, than Eve was our first mother. In that case, we were a bunch of inbreeders, which, technically, makes us no better than animals. And inbreeding can actually cause a variety of health problems scientifically. No offense, but you seem to think that a magical man in the sky said "poof, humans. Only two of them. Now you two have to carry on your entire species". I dont think that happened in any other species.

If god made every species, but loved humans more than any other, why would he make humans have it the hardest? And if you are going to say that there were 2 of every animal to begin with (as in, male and a female carry the entire species), then there is no way there would have been enough food for humans to survive. Unless you count plants as the food Adam and Eve ate, in which case, why do we eat meat if the two original humans were able to survive off of plants? There are more of them, and as far as we know, they cant feel emotion or pain, and apparently, Adam and Eve must have lived a long time to possibly have enough children to make the continuation of humanity possible.

I realize this is off topic, so im not going to discuss it past this post (at least not on this topic). But on the subject of evolution, your proof is a book written thousands of years ago, when people believed that everything was an act of god, and not just nature. As for people that think evolution is responsible for why humans exist, they actually have at least some scientific proof. With or without proof, saying that god is the answer to everything is beyond illogical.

The only thing I cant seem to get is why people get mad that we say we came from apes. Is that an insult? We are humans now, arent we? We are the "superior species", are we not? In which case, it shouldnt matter what we came from, aside for the sake of knowledge. Im failing to realize how saying what we were makes us less important now, unless you have a superiority complex and refuse to think any animal could ever be as "valuable" as a human (so we couldnt have come from apes, in your opinion).

[marzoqi]

yes and this is the truth , god created Adam from sand (it is proven scientifically) and gave him soul . I doubt u will believe me as I may sound unknowledgable , this whole world couldn't create itself there is someone with might and power who can create something from nothing and that is God , Adam is our father and first human he was created by God too
and as I said even if we are superior we can't harm animal , people who live without meat are often weak because the proteins in meat are not avail in plants

[Reflections]

yes and this is the truth , god created Adam from sand (it is proven scientifically) and gave him soul . I doubt u will believe me as I may sound unknowledgable , this whole world couldn't create itself there is someone with might and power who can create something from nothing and that is God , Adam is our father and first human he was created by God too
Where was it proven scientifically that Adam was creqted from sand? What is the soul? Do you mean the mind, which is a by-product of the brain. The world could create itself, it really is not that complex a process, but I assume you mean universe. The Universe could have self created, and there are many scientific theories that explain its formation, some more exotic than others.
By the way, the earth forming itself topic should go into the big-bang thread, the god created man topic should go into the evolution thread, and/or all of these topics could go into the science vs. religion thread (if it is still open).
and as I said even if we are superior we can't harm animal , people who live without meat are often weak because the proteins in meat are not avail in plants
Actually beans have a lot of proteins, and if they drink/eat diary products they might get protein from there. There are supplements one can take to get proteins in most western countries. There are also specific diets that allow vegitarians to get the propper amount of protein, all one would need to do is check with there doctor, or go on a reliable internet site.

[screaminloon]

I have to be completely honest and ask whether or not you are joking marzoqi. I've heard some pretty unusual things, but no one has ever said to me that "Adam was scientifically proven to have been created from sand". If this were the case, dont you think it would be on the news? For that matter, what would scientists be trying to prove if God were proven beyond any doubt? I cant believe anyone would go against god if they KNEW he existed and that you would be punished eternally for thinking or doing things that he is against.

However, on the off chance you are serious, I will add one last thing. Just because you dont understand something doesnt mean it's impossible. We know next to nothing about this universe. Whether god created it, the big bang was responsible, or any other explanation, we do not know at this point. However, what we do know is that we have no idea what this universe is capable of. Things that are described as miracles, like the creation of mankind, could be something that happens every day in this massive universe.

But by throwing "God did it" as an answer to all of lifes mysteries, you undermine humanity and the universe as a whole. It's a lazy answer to a complicated question. That's not to say you absolutely cant be right. That's my point. We dont know, so you cant say "This is what it is, end of story". I dont want to insult anyones belief, but in the way you've gone about explaining it, it's incredibly ignorant.

By the way, can you please answer all of my other points as to why humanity was given the most difficult challenge of survival by god, despite the fact we are his "greatest creation" and are above all other species? Please dont answer with "it's god's plan". That isnt a debate, and it doesnt offer up any proof of the correctness of your position.

[marzoqi]

I said things that I believe in , because I believe in my religion that tells everything from the beginning of life to the ends

[kuratsky]

you can't fight your instincts. eating vegies instead of meat is just like having sex on a virtual reality or procreating tru cloning and any other methods of reproduction without the need for sex. face it no matter how humane we've become we still need to kill other animals for our survival.

[Jmsn]

they say they don't want to kill life so they switch to eating fruits and vegetables but guess what fruits and vegetables are also alive and don't want to be eaten... So what are you gonna do? don't eat anything and just die so that the non-humans would respect you, I'm sorry but all the predators would be eating you now since your weak. The world isn't as easy as we see it is, its a dog eat dog world out there and when your in the brink of death all your morals and beliefs will vanish and your natural instincts will kick in so that you can survive, yes the one that betrays you would be your own body as it doesn't wanna die... Sorry if this sounded rude, I'm not targeting anyone just the point and question at hand.

Very good point,you get a cookie.Eating veggies and fruits is no more humane than eating your cat.Either way you feast on something that was once alive to survive.

In fact,even herbivores are predators...to plantlife of course.A living thing can only exist off of the death of other things...call it equivalent exchange maybe.Your point is a good one,but I feel your point also illustrates an equality between humans ,animal and everything else although that was not your intent.

Our common bond is we eat dead things and without dead things to eat we die.Whether we have better minds and technology or not wont matter if there isnt a plant or animal to kill or eat would it.Without food,we'd be dead whether more advanced than not...and all things are the same and equal when dead,that which bonds them being death.Their dead bodies going to feed something else of course,plant and animal in some way or another.

You have a good argument against being a vegetarian,that's about it though.

you can't fight your instincts. eating vegies instead of meat is just like having sex on a virtual reality or procreating tru cloning and any other methods of reproduction without the need for sex. face it no matter how humane we've become we still need to kill other animals for our survival.

Ummm....what about people who are vegetarians for health reasons?Surely assuming that all vegetarians are veggie eaters to be humane is a generalization...no?And believe it or not some folk don't have an instinct toward meat...I prefer to be a vegetarian simply because I feel healthier and put on less weight this way.Taht does not imply giving a damn about an animal,on the contrary,I wear boots made of leather.

Why is this becoming a discussion about whether being a vegetarian makes sense or not?Surely thats not the topic,the topic was whether humans are equal to other animals last I checked...



God created human as superior than any living so we accept it, but that doesn't mean we can harm them as we wish , God gave us the right to use them as means of traveling and eating or wearing its just alright but harming like not feeding them or hitting them with sticks is prohibited

EDIT : anyone say that humans were monkeys they are wrong , our first father Adam was created human so there is no discussions about it

Ok pastor...can we keep religion out of a non-religious discussion?It's nice that your zealous and all but some detached god,Adam and a barrel of monkeys has little to do with anything.The book of Genesis is religious and religious text can not be trusted or deemed valid in a NON-RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION.

[screaminloon]

Marzoqi, I apologize for sounding rude with what im about to say, but that really wasnt a debate. All you are doing is saying "God this" and "God that". You cant argue a point when the other person isnt using facts.

As for southernrag's post about fruits and vegetables "living and not wanting to die", I have to say, i've never heard about a plant saying "Dont kill me". For that matter, I cant remember any study that says that plants can feel pain, fear, or emotion in general. As far as I know, plants dont think. If plants can feel pain or emotion, it's on a level that humans have yet to understand (as plants do not have brains). That argument makes very little sense to me, especially when comparing a plant to an animal.

The fact is that, whether people like to think so or not, animals do feel fear. They do feel emotion. They feel pain, exactly the way a human does. The difference is that they dont have the ability to beg for mercy. And if they could beg for mercy, would you stop and say "Alright...I wont kill you"? I guess it depends on the person, but I can say that I would never kill any innocent creature that was begging for it's life.

This "the strongest survive" argument is the closest thing to a legitamate argument i've heard. Not because other people are wrong, but it's because it's not saying that animals solely exist for humans. However, the fact remains that people do survive, and live quite healthy lives, on diets that dont involve animals.

I do want to say this though. I am not a vegetarian. I am fine with people eating meat. However, what irritates me is when people say "They live to die for us". That is a level of arrogance that only comes from humans. I mean, for a superior species, we sure do like to act like any other animal.

The only difference between us and most other animals is our brain. We arent superior physically, or emotionally. Despite the fact we do have the ability to show emotion in a clear way, clearly, many humans dont seem to have any pity for other creatures that live on this planet with us. We still hunt for fun, and we still treat animals like they are slaves (not all of us).

If you removed the brain from a human (well...lets say downgraded our brains), we would be one of the least capable species on the planet. And yet, many of the religious people i've spoken with seem to forget that our thoughts and emotions come from our brain, and try to tell people not to feel certain ways or do certain things "in the name of God". In other words, we arent allowed to use the one part of ourselves that makes us superior to other animals on the planet, and yet they still think we are superior to other animals because of the very brains which they seek to control. Makes sense, huh?

[Ninigi Uchiha]

well, again in the end every life's worth is zero. There is no ultimate consequence of life so it isn't worth anything unless you believe in the afterlife of the human soul. In that case a human's life is worth more because its life has an ultimate consequence. In the other case a human life isn't worth anything, in theory.

The reason why laws value human lives over animal's lives is because you must put up rules so that society works, nothing more.

[screaminloon]

Yes, life is basically worthless in the "grand scheme of things", at least as far as we know. I dont know what I believe when it comes to the "soul". However, im leaning towards something like a universal energy, that all "souls" are a small part of. I find it hard to believe that when someone dies (human, animal, or insect), that there is literally nothing afterwards. If this were the case, then building something like Frankenstein would be possible, as there would be no need for anything but the basic organs and body parts.

In the belief of a human soul, I suppose a human's life would be worth more. However, I believe all living creatures have some sort of soul. I've said it before, and i'll probably say it until the day im proven right, wrong, or I die. The universe is incredibly complicated (so complicated, in fact, that i'd go as far as to say are comprehension of time is completely wrong), so at this point, a belief of something like the value of someone on a spirtual level is no more than a theory. From what we do understand, I do believe all life is worth the exact same thing. Be it worthless, or priceless, all lives (in my opinion) are worth the same thing.

[doki-doki kyo]

yes we are "equal," i guess ... but the fact is that humans will always have bonds with other humans, a bond that we dont have with animals ... its like if you had to choose between killing your best friend or your (best) dog ... its just the very fact that we are human that segregates us from animals, automatically placing them lower ... because of that human bond that will always be there. unless ur a cannible or something >_>
i don't have anything against eating animals, becuase its natural. we're omnivours. thats how we do it. after all, we're just animals too ... we're just a different species that happened to flourish very well and started to debate whether or not we should be nice to the other species ...

[Dragon3443]

to sum up your post


I think Lion King Said it best when they said "The great circle of life" lol

[conradxu]

ok so, anything in the food chain is an animal, and if any certain animal dissapears from the food chain, there will be chaos until every species can be sustained again.

that being said, all the animals DEPEND ON EACH other in order to survive. thus their lives are equal.

a whale, no matter its majesticness, need krill and plankton to survive, a human, no matter how smart, must eat chicken, a chicken must eat from a human.

though its lives are all worth the same, the value for each towards another's eyes are different.

[Lucky4x]

well i think the same but i didn't get the part that a chicken must eat from a human or you meant that the human gives food to the chicken.

[conradxu]

yes, how the human supplies the food inorder for the chicken to survive.

[marzoqi]

plants are eaten by no-wild animals and no-wild animals are eaten by humans(grass-cow-humans) every one of them is a living being , so are plants equal to animals or humans , why wild animals like tigers eat goats and cows because they are created like this , we humans can eat animals and plants , God created our digestive system that can digest both meat and plants , they are living being so we treat them nice and feed them as we water plants but god let us eat what's good and survive

[JustPassingBy]

If somebody thinks that all live are equal, then eating meat would be a violation of his morale.


Although there are animals whom I care more about than some humans, I think that overall a human live would be more important to me than the live of an animal.

[rockstar72]

If animal lifes were equal to a human's, they wouldn't be placed in zoos, be eaten by humans, or be kept on a leash.

[jkc]

Tsch. The question presumes there's a universal yardstick by which to "measure" a life. In so far as we know, there isn't. Admittedly, I'm an atheist and don't believe in a "greater power".

When making choices about "this" or "that" species, or life, we have to weigh "what we want" against the consequences. Sometimes we lean towards our desire, sometimes consequences outweigh. Point is, decisions like these evolve over time when thrust into different contexts. Sometimes, the context has a severe effect. Case in point: if the animal is large, fuzzy, and charismatic (versus small, wet, and scaly).

I will say that typically Man chooses "what I want" in disregard to consequences. It's a mark of his neo-paleolithic heritage that he lacks foresight and is concerned primarily with short-term, immediate decisions designed to (again, in the short-term) maximize survival.

[YellowBird]

Personally, I still view most species as being inferior to humans.
However, I also do recognized the importance of those species.
Anyways, I am a vegetarian with respectable views towards animals.

[Third]

Hmm...
I think they are equal.

Maybe what makes some guys think that human life is more precious is that they themselves are humans.
Much like how ancient people won't accept the fact the the solar system is not geocentric...

But if we would think through it, nothing really differs an animal from a human.
We can say that they aren't rational and stuff, but perhaps, animals also have some reason for them to think that they are higher than humans. Well, no one had ever read the thoughts of an animal, or tried to be one.

Moreover, humans are animals too! We just have the advantage because of intelligence. But is there any difference between a pencil and a sign pen? Both have good and bad points, but they serve the same purpose.

A sketcher would not like the sign pen but an inker would not like a pencil. Maybe, it differs from another's point of view...
But from mine. we are all equal.

[Jammerjoint]

You've brought up a good point there. I find it interesting how we make a distinction between "animal" and "human". What makes us so special? There is much more difference between a rat and a tiger than between us and pigs, but we decide that we can completely separate ourselves from all other animals. Besides which, I don't think a life is defined simply by how large your IQ is. Life is precious to us because it is so rare. I find that we can only value it because of that and its impact upon the world. We may think our accomplishments are unmatched, but remember that other animals have done things we could never have dreamed of. We may have built skyscrapers, but we have to consider that their heights are of a certain proportion to humans. Ants have built towers 6 feet tall, a proportion much larger than the Empire State Building to a human. We've flown in airplanes. Birds have migrated across the sky an infinite number of times, traversing so many more miles than we know how to count.

[marzoqi]

should we consider the lives of plants , since plants are liven being

[Dragon3443]

no because plants don't have souls....as far as I am concerned

[jkc]

no because plants don't have souls....as far as I am concerned

And why would you believe animals of any kind, including human, have souls?

Soul is, I believe, the fictitious convenience of a self-important species.

[JustPassingBy]

Because animals and humans have the "soul floating out of their mouth" theme in mangas and plants don't. ;)

[Dragon3443]

No but I have seen animals show emotion and never once have I seen a plant weep when another plant dies

[jkc]

Because animals and humans have the "soul floating out of their mouth" theme in mangas and plants don't. ;)

Ha!

No but I have seen animals show emotion and never once have I seen a plant weep when another plant dies

So emotion is the litmus test for 'soul'? Why? Soul is not required to explain something like emotion. Emotion is a function of two things: communication, for social creatures, and self-preservation and self-propagation, for those creatures which have a sufficiently complicated thinking organ to manifest complicated behaviors.

I'm shooting from the hip, here, so I may need to re-think and re-write that response. Let's move on:

So does an animal with, say, half the observed emotional range of a human (i.e. a dog?) have half the soul we do?

Does a slug, with no obvious emotional capacity, despite being an animal, not have a soul? Insects are animals, too. Do they have souls?

[nope]

Human's are animals. Don't be to bothered when you eat a cow or a manitee or something.. That being said, humans are animals who happen to have the capability to quite efficiently destroy ecosystems in ways that wouldn't be possible through natural means. We rule this planet so the least we can do after killing and eating several wild turkey or some sort of land mamal or a hump back whale is to keep the earth balanced in a way that won't screw things up to much. It's the least we can do.

[jkc]

...That being said, humans are animals who happen to have the capability to quite efficiently destroy ecosystems in ways that wouldn't be possible through natural means...

Natural means? You say humans are animals, with which we should all agree, but then you suggest human action is unnatural?

Human activity on this planet is unfortunate from many perspectives, and it is certainly unprecedented, but it is not unnatural.

[nope]

Using technology, humans are able to change environments at a rate that isn't possible using natural means. I don't know what your arguing. We can cut down a forest ina week and we can easily poison an entire water supply. Not saying technology is bad. Just be sure to keep things in check and don't disturb the ecosystem that we and everything else on the planet rely on to much.

[JustPassingBy]

Natural means? You say humans are animals, with which we should all agree, but then you suggest human action is unnatural?

Human activity on this planet is unfortunate from many perspectives, and it is certainly unprecedented, but it is not unnatural.


Well, one way of understanding natural would be, that there is as little contact with human technology as possible.

But in the end everything is part of nature, so I guess there are no unnatural things.

[jkc]

@Nope

If man is an animal, then man is natural, i.e. he is a product of nature. Technology is merely an extension of man, just as the nest is an extension of the bird, and both bird nest and technology are natural. Just because man is the only species to produce certain technologies does not mean technology is unnatural. It simply means man's technology is unprecedented, though a part of nature all the same.

Like it or not, Man and his totality are a part of Nature, whether or not that totality is beneficial or harmful to the whole.

While some readers may think this issue is one only of semantics, I disagree. Taking note of what 'Nature' encapsulates, of the negative connotations in the word 'unnatural' and their roots, and consideration of why we insist on making man separate from his environment is worthy of speculation.

[nope]

Well, one way of understanding natural would be, that there is as little contact with human technology as possible.

But in the end everything is part of nature, so I guess there are no unnatural things.

If man is an animal, then man is natural, i.e. he is a product of nature. Technology is merely an extension of man, just as the nest is an extension of the bird, and both bird nest and technology are natural. Just because man is the only species to produce certain technologies does not mean technology is unnatural. It simply means man's technology is unprecedented, though a part of nature all the same.

Like it or not, Man and his totality are a part of Nature, whether or not that totality is beneficial or harmful to the whole.

While some readers may think this issue is one only of semantics, I disagree. Taking note of what 'Nature' encapsulates, of the negative connotations in the word 'unnatural' and their roots, and consideration of why we insist on making man separate from his environment is worthy of speculation.

In that sense your both right. But I really can't acknowledge the purposefull deterioration of the environment as natural progression. It doesn't really help us or anything else. Use moderation, find cleaner sources of energy, recycle.. etc.. etc.. and all that.

It really is only semantics. If we could find a way to sustain ourselves efficiently and effectively while maintaining the species continuosly for generations to come with the most wasteful lifestyle possible I would think that that is wonderful but I fail to see how that is possible.

[jkc]

...But I really can't acknowledge the purposefull deterioration of the environment as natural progression. It doesn't really help us or anything else.

Is the decimation of the human population in a small village by the Ebola virus natural? The Ebola virus results in the death of those it infects, rapidly destroying it's (the virus') own environment and resulting in it's local extinction, as well as severely negatively impacting the human community. Is Ebola's activity unnatural?

Technology is a part of nature, as are the trees and birds around us. We must make choices about what we want to preserve, and what we can do away with, but we should be well-conversed in the relationship between our choices prior to any decision. A polarizing or Either/Or perspective about 'Technology' versus 'Nature' lends itself to polarized results.

[nope]

I'm not arguing against technology or technological advancement. You must be miss-interpreting my words. Irreversably damaging the environment isn't really benificial to us. Saying that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to cure diseases or stop scientific or technological developement. It's only with this sort of developement that we'll be able to find a more efficient, less wasteful and over all better way of living.

[jkc]

@Nope

Yeah, I got you and we agree: mankind should advance certain technologies so they become more efficient and we can reduce our own 'ecological footprint'.

Unfortunately, most decisions about technology tend to henge on short-term profit margins, rather than the larger, long-term perspective.

[Dragon3443]

I agree with nope (OMG NOPE THIS IS A FIRST!!!!) =D


that being said how can you say animals and humans don't have souls

[nope]

Jkc/dragon: glad we can all agree on this. There are still scientific advancements being made, so there's every reason to be optomistic.

A soul is just a concept. A soul is about as real as something like a thetan from scientology. It's easy to believe in living things having a soul. It's a fairly simple concept. Proving there is a soul inhabiting living things is close to if not completely impossible though.

[jkc]

that being said how can you say animals and humans don't have souls

How can you say they do? Why is a soul necessary to anything? What is the soul required for that is not accomplished by the heart, lungs, brain, etc.?

The only evidence I am aware of for 'soul' lies in cultural mythologies, where it's value as evidence is highly debated.

And if you can, I posed an earlier question: do all animals have souls? This includes slugs? And insects?

EDIT: It may be obvious, but I'm a proponent of the Principle of Parsimony in matters our knowing reaches its limit. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony

[Dragon3443]

true...But still no one has prolly ever thought of a plant having a soul

[YellowBird]

Plants don't have a conscience.

[jkc]

@YellowBird

Are you suggesting conscience = soul?

That seems a very species-centric attitude. Especially so considering we don't know to what degree other animals share our own level of self-awareness. It's a very *convenient* explanation for humans.

So I'll pose to you the question I posed before, which has been unanswered:

Do human versus chimpanzee versus dog versus fish all have different amounts of soul because they have varying levels of consciousness? Or is there an arbitrary line drawn somewhere?

[JustPassingBy]

Well, there are people saying that plants do have conscience.
And there are several thesis about plants being able to communicate with each other.
Just google unter plant and communication.

[marzoqi]

humans have soul I'm sure about it , but animals I don't know they have , also I doubt plants do have
But what I know is animals have 5 senses like us but plants have 2-3 senses I don't remember well , so they don't yell when they are cut and don't weep cause they got no eyes , so maybe this is why we feel sorry for animals

[Manhunter098]

humans have soul I'm sure about it , but animals I don't know they have , also I doubt plants do have
But what I know is animals have 5 senses like us but plants have 2-3 senses I don't remember well , so they don't yell when they are cut and don't weep cause they got no eyes , so maybe this is why we feel sorry for animals

And sharks have like 7 senses, the number of senses isnt of any importance.

[marzoqi]

What I meant is that we see animals pain and hear their voice when they get killed but the plants doesn't have sound when someone cuts(or kills) it so u don't feel when u see it cut(again or kills) but u feel for the animal when its being killed , I don't feel much since I"m used to see animals being killed