18 ms·
I'll outright say it-an endangered animal's life is more valuable then a randomly selected human's. You could kill 10 or 100 humans for each of an endangered sp
by a2tech 9y ago
I'll outright say it-an endangered animal's life is more valuable then a randomly selected human's. You could kill 10 or 100 humans for each of an endangered species and make no (net) difference in the ability of the human race to survive.
- SCHiM 9y agoAs if that's the only consideration. The survival of the race? Turn that around you can justify just about anything, like killing <human group here> because you believe it's better for 'survival'. I think the moral takeaway is not that the lives of these people is worth less than that of an animal. It's that they are breaking knowingly and are often murderers themselves.
- jimrandomh 9y agoSo if you could choose between saving the lives of five elephants, or preventing the Las Vegas shooting, you'd choose the elephants? That seems to be what you're saying.
- KGIII 9y agoI don't know if that's what they are saying, but I would say that. Tragic though the Vegas shooting was, humans aren't an endangered species. Don't get me wrong, I happily hunt and fish. I clean and process dead animals with great frequency. The difference, in this case, is that elephants are truly at risk of extinction.