Ethics value poll

1 baby vs x ants

  • 1 baby life is more valuable than 10 ants' lives, I extrapolate

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • 1 baby life is more valuable than 1Billion ants' lives, I extrapolate

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • 1 baby life is more valuable than infinite ants' lives, I extrapolate

    Votes: 23 76.7%
  • I beg to differ(explain)

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • other(explain)

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • Total voters
    30
Here's two interesting questions:

What would you consider more valuable, 1 human baby's life or x ants' lives? Would you dare to extrapolate?

It is true that some would choose x ants, but I'd pressume most would choose the single baby, irregardless of the number of ants. Yet somehow, I feel like they'd fear to extrapolate...

Please feel free to elaborate, irregardless of answer(or lack of.).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just so we're clear, this isn't an abortion type question, right? We are talking about a newborn?
 
I voted for infinite number of ants, however i would have prefered one where the total number of ants minus Y. Y being an amount of ants, preserved for future research/breeding/repopulation.

epic
 
Yeah, I voted the same, but because I was thinking that the extinction of all ants would be an impractical exercise. I'd say that the extinction of all ant species would definitely be more important than the loss of one baby. But since ants are so damned good at surviving, killing basically any number of them isn't worth one human life.
 
I'd choose a baby over a massive amount of ants, however, if ants were close to extinct I'd probably value the ecological balance enough to consider saving the ants instead, unless humans were also close to getting extinct, in which case the baby would be more important than any amount of ants. If I were the father of the baby, it would naturally be darn near impossible to convince me to save the ants, regardless how endangered they would be.
 
It seems I should've been clearer with the 'extrapolate' term, which was basically the main focus of this topic. I believe had I been clearer many would've chosen otherwise.

This is not related to abortion, but to what's in the balance, to progress... some already know where I'm going, and who the ants represent and who the baby represents.

An ant is a system a baby is another system, there are many other systems that when compared would exhibit such vast or even greater disparities in all senses of the word.

If you were an ant and you could somehow be made able to barely grasp the nature of the baby, if you grasped how easily and how quickly you'd perish, and how all those of your kind were fated so; How the meanings and dealings of you and your fellow ants, before your eyes, would pale before even a glimpse of what seemed to await the baby, before the baby's world... would you still choose the baby? would you risk the world of ants to help bring the baby into this world?
 
I do value babies more than ants, but if having a baby means sacrificing X ants, then I'd want to find some solution to that problem. Ants are important to the ecology and shouldn't be needlessly destroyed... as long as they stay out of my kitchen! :D

-FUDie
 
RussSchultz said:
Can I cover the baby in chocolate ?
Babies do that to themselves with enough regularity that it would be a pointless exercise (provided they are given chocolate in liquid form).
 
Other than their ecological balance purposes ants are completely and utterly useless to me. I hold no value for them at all, they can cause severe headaches.

The only way I would ever value a amount of ants over even one baby would be if it would cause the extinction of ants.

Your second post makes completely no sense to me. Please try to be less crptic and just get to the point.
 
nutball said:
Humans have no more intrinsic value than any other species.

But to humans, humans have the highest value possible. I voted for third, one human life is more valuable than all ants on this planet. Or cats and dogs, or dolphins, insert whatever animal species.
 
_xxx_ said:
But to humans, humans have the highest value possible. I voted for third, one human life is more valuable than all ants on this planet. Or cats and dogs, or dolphins, insert whatever animal species.
...and since humans are the only thing on Earth that have any concept of value, then we clearly must have more value.
 
Chalnoth said:
...and since humans are the only thing on Earth that have any concept of value, then we clearly must have more value.

Not what I meant. I'm not saying that we have more value in the big picture of the universe, just that we see us as more valuable. Which is selfish, but required for survival.

Do you think that ants would answer the question differently in the opposite (theoretical) case? I don't.

EDIT: also, animals do have sense of value. It is necessary for the survival of any species. Try attacking the offspring while the mother's around, for example. She'll defend what's valuable to her and even sacrifice her own life if needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chalnoth said:
...and since humans are the only thing on Earth that have any concept of value, then we clearly must have more value.
I once met a 200lb Rottweiller that clearly put great value on the tastiness of my testicles.
 
xxx said:
But to humans, humans have the highest value possible.

Yes they do, so from a subjective perspective humans are obviously going to come out as most valuable if you ask a human!

Chalnoth said:
...and since humans are the only thing on Earth that have any concept of value, then we clearly must have more value.

... or maybe the concept of value has no value at all!

It's not at all obvious to me that the human species really, objectively has that much more to offer compared to any other randomly chosen species on the planet. We're just another cog in the machine, removing us isn't going to cause the collapse of life on Earth.
 
Back
Top