• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Human Life of Greater Value Than That of Other Species?

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I realise it's a complex situation, but fundamentally it starts with our attitudes to human life vs non-human life. Your covid vaccine is a perfect example. Why did we need a covid vaccine:

[/QUOTE]

The attitude toward animals displayed by a lot of people and industries is indeed unconscionable, and I would cite the cosmetic and fashion industries as two of the worst offenders in that regard. However, I wouldn't pin the blame for this on people who respond to medical needs regardless of the origin thereof. The lack of proper regulation in some Chinese wet markets is the fault of the Chinese government, not animal researchers who had to develop a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as they could.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
If we are going to develop such products, then they will ultimately need to be used or tested on someone.

Rather than testing such things on innocent animals who are healthy and not in need of them, why not test them on the one who wants them to begin with?

If a medicine needed to be developed for a malady I had, or for whatever reason I wanted to cosmetically enhance myself, would it not make more sense for such a product be tested on me than on some innocent being? After all, I’m the one who wants it, right?

The sample size is one problem: rats and mice are easy to breed in large numbers and to replace in case experiments require that, but we can't have an entire farm of hundreds of humans and replace any of them during the testing process.

Clinical trials still involve humans, but that's only after the treatment has been tested on animals and met specific criteria. If we could reliably find enough willing human subjects, then sure, that would be fairer than testing on animals. But actual testing scenarios never play out that way.
 

Secret Chief

Degrow!
The attitude toward animals displayed by a lot of people and industries is indeed unconscionable, and I would cite the cosmetic and fashion industries as two of the worst offenders in that regard. However, I wouldn't pin the blame for this on people who respond to medical needs regardless of the origin thereof. The lack of proper regulation in some Chinese wet markets is the fault of the Chinese government, not animal researchers who had to develop a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as they could.
Thankfully, cosmetics and fashion are easy to dodge and the use of animal testing for the latter is greatly reduced I believe. I'm not pinning blame on those working in medical capacities. I'm simply saying the attitude that nonhuman animals can be treated like **** underlies why wet markets are as they are. The Chinese government must include people who have such an attitude. Presumably the patrons of such markets think it's ok too. Or maybe not so much now, now it's affected them, now it matters.
 

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
I know that Ramana didn't bother to take meds to kill the parasites eating away his arm.

There is no magic.

Ramana did take meds. For instance, he had knee pain for which he regularly used oils and/or balms. Check the book "Day by Day with Bhagavan".

Everyone has a certain level of tolerance to physical pain after which they seek some form of relief. True for all people, including Ramana.

Apologies for deviating from the topic of the thread.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Do you please a greater value on human life that the life of another species?
It is complex .. there is no easy answer.
I respect other creatures in a similar way that I do humans .. I do not agree with bad treatment of animals. They are like humans, in as much as they have feelings, and can suffer.

When it comes to eating meat, I do not like to think that any creatures have suffered before they reach my plate.
I do not agree with eating a lot of meat regularly.
It is highly desirable, to eat of meat that has been reared in natural surroundings, and not in captivity.

I don't see death as a final thing, so the killing of other creatures, as long as it is done in a humane way, I think is OK.
..but not to the point of extinction, through greed.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
The sample size is one problem: rats and mice are easy to breed in large numbers and to replace in case experiments require that, but we can't have an entire farm of hundreds of humans and replace any of them during the testing process.

Clinical trials still involve humans, but that's only after the treatment has been tested on animals and met specific criteria. If we could reliably find enough willing human subjects, then sure, that would be fairer than testing on animals. But actual testing scenarios never play out that way.

Which begs the question: are the animals being tested willing?

Yeah, yeah, I know. Human rights. But that’s kind of the point of this thread, no? Humans have the right to not be experimented on, but is perfectly acceptable to many to blow a hole into an innocent lion and take its life…for sport.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
From the perspective of most humans it will be highly likely that they will place greater value on themselves (as a species if not as individuals), even if they were not sure what 'value' meant to them, but I suspect this is loaded in their favour anyway. If we destroy so many species that such risks the destruction of humankind eventually then they might have placed more 'value' on other species - but too late perhaps.

Not much to add from the points already made, given that humans have had hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer, to ensure their own survival came first (and as to those closer to them having more value over those more distant), and such natural feelings are rather difficult to overcome apart from the few species that we often tend to value more highly than others. Even so, few would probably place these lives before a human life when at risk. Also, we have had some religious beliefs mostly telling us that humans are the pinnacle of creation, and that will be another factor aiding this view of life.

I've no idea what will happen in the future but I suspect that as we become more knowledgeable about animal behaviour, and their communications, we might have better relationships with them. And hopefully not cause so many to go extinct. But in the end I have to place more value as to human life - only not that much. :oops:
 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
How do you square this belief with the fact that many medications, vaccines, and other treatments we use were developed with the help of animal research?

In addition to the very insightful perspectives on this question contributed thus far, I'd like to point out that in cultures that heavily embraced animism, viewing non-humans as persons never meant an avoidance of harm to those persons. Humans must kill other persons to live. There is no way around that.

What the perspective of animism and accepting other-than-human persons brings to the table is a level of consideration and respectfulness that is often absent from our present mainstream culture. There is a whole literature of environmental ethics in philosophy devoted to these considerations and I can't possibly hope to cover all that here.

One of the most interesting takes that I studied was to evaluate situations from the perspective of vital and non-vital needs. That we as humans must kill other persons to live is an expression of a vital need. Where a person (human or otherwise) is satisfying a vital need, it has every right to satisfy that need. It must, or it suffers and eventually dies. For some, your example of developing medicines would fall under the auspices of vital needs. I think this is debatable in at least some cases, but it provides a solid point of reason, especially if is coupled with deeply respectful treatment of that which you must kill to live. Animism and seeing other-than-human persons prompts us to ask what can we give back, and if what we are doing is truly a vital need versus just something that we want.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Do you please a greater value on human life that the life of another species?

If so, why?

If not, why not?
Objectively or subjectively?

Frankly, I do not believe that human life is "better" than that of other species in any objective sense. I could only believe that if I believed in a creator deity, which I do not.

Subjectively, on the other hand -- well, every species tries (through the processes of evolution) to survive and reproduce, which often involves competing against other species, and we're no different.



Now, this does bring up an interesting question, though: we often hear of the "problem of evil," or explaining why an all-good deity would create a world with so much suffering (such explanations are called theodicies). We generally mean "human suffering," however, and are not concerned about animal suffering. And yet, I contend that an all powerful, all-good deity would no more permit so much horrendous animal suffering (and you have no idea how much there really is in nature) than it would human suffering.

The world as it is, it seems to me, is pretty much what I'd expect if I believed only in a natural world, obeying the physical, chemical and genetic laws that we see. It is not what I would expect to see if it ws the creation of all all-good deity, keeping watch over it all.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
Apologies for deviating from the topic of the thread.
Exactly, I did not deviate from the topic

Ramana did take meds. For instance, he had knee pain for which he regularly used oils and/or balms. Check the book "Day by Day with Bhagavan".

Everyone has a certain level of tolerance to physical pain after which they seek some form of relief. True for all people, including Ramana.
You misquoted me on Ramana Maharishi
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Human society has become more mechanized and industrialized, to be sure. That has been a bit of a double-edged sword, since we live better and eat better than we ever did in more primitive times, even if we were "closer to nature," so speak. Strictly speaking, "the natural way" is pretty harsh and cruel - very cold and indifferent. Sure, nature is also beautiful, and I can see where some might even see it as spiritual, although such beliefs (or non-beliefs) obviously vary from individual to individual.

While I can't justify or explain everything our society has done, at least in terms of improving technologies related to food production and other industries which enhance human quality of life - I think a lot of it was done with good intentions in mind. Through much of history, humans really didn't eat that much or didn't eat that well. Some years were better than others, I suppose. It's one of the most basic human needs, and humans have certainly devoted a great deal of time, energy, intellect, and resources to try to figure out this age-old dilemma of how to feed the people. Maybe we could be doing some things better, but we could be doing a heck of a lot worse, too.

Yeah what you say has got some backing to it, but then again.. You know I just a read a large book that dealt a lot with the pre-contact / post-contact world in the Amazon rainforest. And I guess what I find is, from reading all kinds of things like that, is that a stable human/nature dynamic can seem to fit themselves to each other like a glove. And our scientists go there, to learn from them, as we erase their cultures. But an economist might just look at all of that land and go, 'well this soil is terrible for mono-cultures.' You know what I mean?

And people complain that the lifestyle was hard, but if you're trained to use a bow and arrow, if you're trained to be a nomad, if you know what to look for, then is it really hard? No, because you grew up with it. It is your language. (and it might even be humane, depending on how good of an arrow poison you have?) We think it's hard, because all we do is sit here on laptops.

But it is true, yes, that our way of doing it does/has seemed to promote growth. And it has given people the time, I guess, not to worry about hunting and growing food for themselves, so that theoretically they can become productive at other things. (but what exactly are we doing?)

And now, isn't there going to be a fertilizer crisis? Isn't there a supply chain crisis that's going to play out now, because of war? So if that happens, then the growth breaks down. Who has the best soil in the world? How long will the best soil even last, are we burning it out? In our model, does productive output need to be constant. Do cattle really need to be processed every couple minutes, otherwise the stockmarket bars take a plunge? Do we really need to consume so many millions of barrels of oil everyday, otherwise our way breaks down?
 
Last edited:

idea

Question Everything
How do these qualities equate to greater value?

Someone who is clever can grow more food, can perhaps cure illness, can create comfortable homes. Value is often defined by what we can do for others, and our ability to think and act increases our ability to serve others, abd therefore increases our value to others.


I don't have a problem with eating a plant because I can do so without kiling it.

So no carrots or potatoes.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Someone who is clever can grow more food, can perhaps cure illness, can create comfortable homes. Value is often defined by what we can do for others, and our ability to think and act increases our ability to serve others, abd therefore increases our value to others.

Are you saying other species don't have homes that are comfortable for them? That they don't help others?

We kill other species to cure illness. How does this increase value?

How does the willingness to take the lives of others play into your value ideology?

So no carrots or potatoes.

No carrots. Potatoes can be harvested without killing the plant.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Go and kill a cockroach, then tell me if as a result you experience PTS and a lifetime of Guilt and suffering.
I suspect your know the answer.

If you aren't going to answer the question and just create presumptuous posts pretending you know something about me, there is no point in your participating in this thread.
 

idea

Question Everything
Are you saying other species don't have homes that are comfortable for them? That they don't help others?

We kill other species to cure illness. How does this increase value?

How does the willingness to take the lives of others play into your value ideology?



No carrots. Potatoes can be harvested without killing the plant.

Humans have reached a population of 8 billion in large part from helping one another. Just one definition if value - we value what serves us, and intelligent beings have the ability to serve.

Interesting, didn't know that about potatoes.
 

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
If you aren't going to answer the question and just create presumptuous posts pretending you know something about me, there is no point in your participating in this thread.
I clearly answered the question, obviously the killing of a Human would affect you more one would think, or is that a presumption.
You also don’t have any right to tell anyone wether they can participate or not.
Sorry for making the presumption that you view cockroaches as being equal to Humans.
 
Top