4 ms·

My question was about a sci-fi hypothetical scenario, not the current state of things. However the hypocrisy of the current state of things is staggering to me

My question was about a sci-fi hypothetical scenario, not the current state of things. However the hypocrisy of the current state of things is staggering to me. Using words like 'ethical' and 'unethical' makes it worse. Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse. To avoid a result "as good as murder" in humans, we are actually murdering other animals.

Godel_unicode 8y ago
> Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse. Is this hyperbole, or do you seriously believe this?
- kranner 8y ago
  Of course I seriously believe it. It really should be necessary for people who don't believe it to explain themselves. That is rejecting the null hypothesis, so to speak.
  - mamon 8y ago
    It all comes down to the level of self awarenes and emotional development demonstrated by species. Some primates come close enough to young human children in that regard to cast at least some doubt, but mice? Yes, we probably shouldn't kill them for fun, but saying that their lives are worth as much as human lives is ridiculous and insulting to all humans.
    - kranner 8y ago
      > It all comes down to the level of self awarenes and emotional development demonstrated by species. Why does it come down to self awareness and emotional development? Because of suffering? Nothing about this is obvious, but I believe (given lack of evidence to the contrary and given that mice and human brains are similar enough) that mice suffer as much as humans. This is my belief -- not an argument intended to convince others. > saying that their lives are worth as much as human lives is ridiculous and insulting to all humans. Anything unconventional is ridiculous. But how is it insulting to humans? Are we supposed to be at the top somehow? This is a religious argument you seem to be making. This is a touchy topic, and I don't think productive discussion will obtain here, so I will not make any further comments in this thread.
      - Vinnl 8y ago
        As a bystander to this discussion, though, I should add that I held the same convictions as GP, feeling that it was somehow obvious that you were wrong. When I applied some serious scrutiny to this thought, though, it became a lot less obvious. I say "I" applied scrutiny, but it was basically this book, which I would therefore recommend to anyone reading along: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29380.Animal_Liberation https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29380.Animal_Liberation It might not convince you completely of this point, but it will force you to seriously consider your arguments, and is therefore in my opinion a great intellectual exercise.
      - mamon 8y ago
        Some people become vegetarian for this exact reason, but then why stop there? is there a reason to declare life of the plants that you eat less valuable? Stop eating them, these apples or carrots they all have families, dreams, plans for their future. The level of self awareness is pretty much the only thing we can grade life. I might even like mice, but their lives are endless cycle of eat - fuck - sleep - shit. Human lives are much more productive, creative, interesting and therefore more valuable. And all of that starts with self-awareness.
  - seventhtiger 8y ago
    You're not arguing that the line should be drawn somewhere else. You're arguing that there is no line. So let's take it all the way. What makes the life of a lab mouse more valuable than the life of a single cell of yeast? I think answers about awareness and capability just rationalize the fact that intuitively some life forms are more sympathetic to us than others. We will draw the line at some level of sympathy, but only as far as practicality allows us. A human life is more valuable than the life of a lab mouse because a human is more sympathetic than a mouse and it is impractical to value lab mice highly. That's the only answer.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      And that's basically the same answer you'd get about slavery from a slave owner. I don't think it is a good argument.
      - dTal 8y ago
        Nevertheless, it's probably true. It's wishful thinking to hope that morality can be put on any firmer ground than "what humans intuitively feel, as a consequence of millions of years of ultimately self-centred evolution". The moment your more-perfect moral framework disagrees with intuition, it will be discarded.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        I find it difficult to respect that opinion, because it seems to me it is just an excuse not to try.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  From an objective view point, it is completely and obviously true. There is no intrinsic quality of humanity that makes our lives more valuable than that of any other organism, or indeed, anything else in the universe. Which isn't to say that we necessarily should be interacting with the rest of the universe as though everything is human, because... well honestly I'm not sure I can express the concept in a way that it is even remotely likely to be understood, but I think it would suffice to say that we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we are somehow special and preferred by the universe. We may prefer ourselves simply because we are us, but at the same time our concept of self is incredibly expandable. Even within those arguing against parent there are people willing to include non-human species among that definition because they display similar cognitive qualities, and there are humans who would exclude other humans for various reasons. The line is arbitrary and subjective to the point that I make the following assertion: it is entirely illusory, an imposition of our mind's desire to categorize.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    > From an objective view point, it is completely and obviously true. There is no intrinsic quality of humanity that makes our lives more valuable than that of any other organism, or indeed, anything else in the universe. The only "obvious" answer I could see from the perspective of the entire universe is that the value of a single life is zero. But that perspective isn't useful for most moral decisions. If you evaluate that mouse = human = nonzero, I don't think that's "completely and obviously true" at all. Let's remove the issue of human exceptionalism, even. It is not "completely and obviously true" that mouse = tapeworm = nonzero, either. A lot of your argument is just that humans are not categorically different, which is not the same discussion as whether different species have different multipliers.

Godel_unicode 8y ago

> Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse. Is this hyperbole, or do you seriously believe this?

kranner 8y ago
Of course I seriously believe it. It really should be necessary for people who don't believe it to explain themselves. That is rejecting the null hypothesis, so to speak.
- mamon 8y ago
  It all comes down to the level of self awarenes and emotional development demonstrated by species. Some primates come close enough to young human children in that regard to cast at least some doubt, but mice? Yes, we probably shouldn't kill them for fun, but saying that their lives are worth as much as human lives is ridiculous and insulting to all humans.
  - kranner 8y ago
    > It all comes down to the level of self awarenes and emotional development demonstrated by species. Why does it come down to self awareness and emotional development? Because of suffering? Nothing about this is obvious, but I believe (given lack of evidence to the contrary and given that mice and human brains are similar enough) that mice suffer as much as humans. This is my belief -- not an argument intended to convince others. > saying that their lives are worth as much as human lives is ridiculous and insulting to all humans. Anything unconventional is ridiculous. But how is it insulting to humans? Are we supposed to be at the top somehow? This is a religious argument you seem to be making. This is a touchy topic, and I don't think productive discussion will obtain here, so I will not make any further comments in this thread.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      As a bystander to this discussion, though, I should add that I held the same convictions as GP, feeling that it was somehow obvious that you were wrong. When I applied some serious scrutiny to this thought, though, it became a lot less obvious. I say "I" applied scrutiny, but it was basically this book, which I would therefore recommend to anyone reading along: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29380.Animal_Liberation https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29380.Animal_Liberation It might not convince you completely of this point, but it will force you to seriously consider your arguments, and is therefore in my opinion a great intellectual exercise.
    - mamon 8y ago
      Some people become vegetarian for this exact reason, but then why stop there? is there a reason to declare life of the plants that you eat less valuable? Stop eating them, these apples or carrots they all have families, dreams, plans for their future. The level of self awareness is pretty much the only thing we can grade life. I might even like mice, but their lives are endless cycle of eat - fuck - sleep - shit. Human lives are much more productive, creative, interesting and therefore more valuable. And all of that starts with self-awareness.
- seventhtiger 8y ago
  You're not arguing that the line should be drawn somewhere else. You're arguing that there is no line. So let's take it all the way. What makes the life of a lab mouse more valuable than the life of a single cell of yeast? I think answers about awareness and capability just rationalize the fact that intuitively some life forms are more sympathetic to us than others. We will draw the line at some level of sympathy, but only as far as practicality allows us. A human life is more valuable than the life of a lab mouse because a human is more sympathetic than a mouse and it is impractical to value lab mice highly. That's the only answer.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    And that's basically the same answer you'd get about slavery from a slave owner. I don't think it is a good argument.
    - dTal 8y ago
      Nevertheless, it's probably true. It's wishful thinking to hope that morality can be put on any firmer ground than "what humans intuitively feel, as a consequence of millions of years of ultimately self-centred evolution". The moment your more-perfect moral framework disagrees with intuition, it will be discarded.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        I find it difficult to respect that opinion, because it seems to me it is just an excuse not to try.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
From an objective view point, it is completely and obviously true. There is no intrinsic quality of humanity that makes our lives more valuable than that of any other organism, or indeed, anything else in the universe. Which isn't to say that we necessarily should be interacting with the rest of the universe as though everything is human, because... well honestly I'm not sure I can express the concept in a way that it is even remotely likely to be understood, but I think it would suffice to say that we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we are somehow special and preferred by the universe. We may prefer ourselves simply because we are us, but at the same time our concept of self is incredibly expandable. Even within those arguing against parent there are people willing to include non-human species among that definition because they display similar cognitive qualities, and there are humans who would exclude other humans for various reasons. The line is arbitrary and subjective to the point that I make the following assertion: it is entirely illusory, an imposition of our mind's desire to categorize.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > From an objective view point, it is completely and obviously true. There is no intrinsic quality of humanity that makes our lives more valuable than that of any other organism, or indeed, anything else in the universe. The only "obvious" answer I could see from the perspective of the entire universe is that the value of a single life is zero. But that perspective isn't useful for most moral decisions. If you evaluate that mouse = human = nonzero, I don't think that's "completely and obviously true" at all. Let's remove the issue of human exceptionalism, even. It is not "completely and obviously true" that mouse = tapeworm = nonzero, either. A lot of your argument is just that humans are not categorically different, which is not the same discussion as whether different species have different multipliers.