22 ms·

This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. Which do you value more, animals or humans?

VladRussian2 13y ago
>This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. it is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice everyone of us make. Like these researchers at UCSF - whether to administer analgesics or not before cutting a body part - calling it a philosophical question clearly shows your own philosophy. >Which do you value more, animals or humans? By asking such a question you already stated your answer. I don't ask nor answer such a question as i don't assign specific value points on lives of humans or animals. Putting such specific values and compare them has always been leading humans who think of themselves as of higher value to mindlessly butcher, torture, etc... anybody whom they think of as of lesser value, be it humans or animals.
- yew 13y ago
  It is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice every one of us make. There is no answer that's not philosophical. Refusing to quantify your philosophy is philosophical. It amounts to asserting that taking a position is wrong when only people who disagree with the philosophy you implicitly accept are taking a position, so it's also rather hostile.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? But I can also answer that with a question if you want: which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? (not that we lack a constancy of military action in the world, but hey)
- ars 13y ago
  > If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? If by value you mean assign a positive number then No. If by value you mean calculate then Yes. (Sorry for phrasing it that way, but I wasn't sure which you meant.) > which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? Now I'm confused. In another post you appear to be against this experiment (i.e. the slow and steady progress), but the way you write this makes it look like the slow and steady progress is the better way - but that's the experiment. So which is it?

>This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. it is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice everyone of us make. Like these researchers at UCSF - whether to administer analgesics or not before cutting a body part - calling it a philosophical question clearly shows your own philosophy. >Which do you value more, animals or humans? By asking such a question you already stated your answer. I don't ask nor answer such a question as i don't assign specific value points on lives of humans or animals. Putting such specific values and compare them has always been leading humans who think of themselves as of higher value to mindlessly butcher, torture, etc... anybody whom they think of as of lesser value, be it humans or animals.

yew 13y ago
It is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice every one of us make. There is no answer that's not philosophical. Refusing to quantify your philosophy is philosophical. It amounts to asserting that taking a position is wrong when only people who disagree with the philosophy you implicitly accept are taking a position, so it's also rather hostile.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? But I can also answer that with a question if you want: which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? (not that we lack a constancy of military action in the world, but hey)

ars 13y ago
> If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? If by value you mean assign a positive number then No. If by value you mean calculate then Yes. (Sorry for phrasing it that way, but I wasn't sure which you meant.) > which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? Now I'm confused. In another post you appear to be against this experiment (i.e. the slow and steady progress), but the way you write this makes it look like the slow and steady progress is the better way - but that's the experiment. So which is it?