Ethics value poll

[StefanS]

Humans have no more intrinsic value than any other species.

I can't see where you're going there. Do you want to persecute killing an insect as murder or do you want to legalize homocide?

 

[nutball]

I can't see where you're going there. Do you want to persecute killing an insect as murder or do you want to legalize homocide?

My point is that the concept of "value" can have many different meanings depending on the context and scale you're talking about.

When looking at the world around us we choose to place humans (particularly infants and the young) at the top of our scale of value. Next on our value scale is a very large gap, followed by cute, furry animals (cats, dogs, monkeys), then another vast chasm ... then everything else. So from this perspective, no I wouldn't expect people who kills ants to be treated in the same way as people who kill humans (especially babies). But these values are highly subjective, and bear little or no relation to the value that the human species might have if you look on a global scale.

Even within our own societies we choose to value some individuals more highly than others. A high value might be assigned to someone who does a lot of work which is highly beneficial to others, for example. If we step back however and replace each individual by a species and replace civilization by the global ecosystem, and then ask the question which species on Earth are most beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole, it really isn't clear that human species is more valuable than the ant species.

If we were to try to formulate an objective measure of value (which is of course impossible) then we may end up with answers we wouldn't like (which is why it's impossible, because those formulations of objective value would be rejected for subjective reasons).

 

[KimB]

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.

Of course we have much more to offer. We actually have the capacity for directed change. Nothing else on the planet can claim that. If humans suddenly ceased to exist, the planet would be very different from if any other single specific species suddenly ceased to exist.

 

[StefanS]

My point is that the concept of "value" can have many different meanings depending on the context and scale you're talking about.

When looking at the world around us we choose to place humans (particularly infants and the young) at the top of our scale of value. Next on our value scale is a very large gap, followed by cute, furry animals (cats, dogs, monkeys), then another vast chasm ... then everything else. So from this perspective, no I wouldn't expect people who kills ants to be treated in the same way as people who kill humans (especially babies). But these values are highly subjective, and bear little or no relation to the value that the human species might have if you look on a global scale.

Actually, that goes to heart of the discussion which is going in Spain at the moment: Spanish legislators are discussion if they should grant the more intelligent monkeys some "human" right status, as chimpanzees are for example more intelligent or developed than babies.

 

[nutball]

Of course we have much more to offer. We actually have the capacity for directed change. Nothing else on the planet can claim that.

OK so explain to me in objective terms why directed change is necessarily a Good Thing(TM)? I don't deny that we have some "unique talents" which stem primarily from our intelligence. But can you come up with some metrics to show that the global ecosystem as a whole is better off with those talents than it is without them?

If humans suddenly ceased to exist, the planet would be very different from if any other single specific species suddenly ceased to exist.

Different? Oh I don't doubt that, but would it be "better" or would it be "worse"?

 

[KimB]

OK so explain to me in objective terms why directed change is necessarily a Good Thing(TM)? I don't deny that we have some "unique talents" which stem primarily from our intelligence. But can you come up with some metrics to show that the global ecosystem as a whole is better off with those talents than it is without them?

Well, it's simple, really. Without intelligent life, the heritage of this planet is doomed to end. With intelligent life, there's the possibility of migration to other planets. Since the primary drive of all life is to survive, humans are the (current) ultimate expression of that drive on Earth.

That doesn't make us more valuable than some hypothetical other intelligent life form that might evolve in the future, but it certainly makes us more valuable to the heritage of life on our planet than any other currently-existing life form.

 

[Guden Oden]

I voted for infinite number of ants, however i would have prefered one where the total number of ants minus Y.

I absolutely would not vote infinite number of ants versus one human child, no flippin' way.

Ants are an INTEGRAL and EXTREMELY NECCESSARY part of the ecosystem of this planet. Sacrificing our planet for just one kid is simply unacceptable. Especially when we're only too happy to sacrifice kids for almost no reason whatsoever, often merely because its parents have been declared 'enemies', and a baby here or there are either declared acceptable losses, or probably more commonly, don't mean a thing at all.

*Edit: And yes, this is aimed at any warmongering right-to-lifers who feel themselves singled out by this post!

 

[KimB]

Guden, everybody who has stated that they place no value on ants' lives has done so with the express caveat that they are considering that if ants were in danger of extinction, the whole situation changes.

 

[zidane1strife]

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.

It seems many've chosen to take the context of these systems into account, but that is not absolutely necessary. Nor the importance of this context, this ecosystem or life, we could easily say that ants would evolve/evolve/have evolved/are in an infinity of alternate possibilities, thus even actively destroying an infinite number of them is probably futile, well, one could at least always destroy those within one's grasp.

The question is, that if irregardless of most of the context(extinction/abundance/etc/ecosystems), one ant or an infinite number of ants should be considered less valuable than a single baby/child. We could have infinite babies and infinite ants, but should we consider one of the former more valuable than any number of the latter? That is what has been placed in the balance of progress...

If we extrapolate, should a single larger and more complex system with emergent properties making it greater than the sum of its parts, be considered more valuable than any number of comparably vastly simpler systems(with their own emergent properties and what have you.)?

IOW, progress, evolution. Should we embrace it an everything it entails? Each new being exhibiting greater complexity and greater adaptability may be able to endanger those or all those that preceded it(example humans.).

By extrapolation should we embrace the continuity of this principle, of evolution, of progress? Should we embrace this possibility, that the whole of humanity itself may be endangered along with the whole of life on this planet as a result of it? That is, embrace the longterm implications of evolution, of progress, and help such to continue, to go on.

 

[Skrying]

Yeah, that's not making sense to me again, but I am extremely tired today so......

Lets put it this way:

If I see a ant in my house I kill it, but it 1 or 100,000. This does not even bring the life of a baby into the equation.

 

[zidane1strife]

Yeah, that's not making sense to me again, but I am extremely tired today so......

Lets put it this way:

If I see a ant in my house I kill it, but it 1 or 100,000. This does not even bring the life of a baby into the equation.

I will elucidate further...

As an ant is compared to a human, or maybe even divided by an even greater chasm... What of a being that humans could very well consider but a god?

Would bringing such beings into this world be acceptable to ye, considering the risks? Throughout history, many've been those who've valued even the vaguest symbol of a godlike entity above human life. But what of ye? When humanity is placed in the balance and at the other end is a true living Godlike entity, toward which side does your balance tilt?

 

[LunchBox]

If the basis is ethics for humanity, the baby's life can't be given an equal price. Therefore the ant's are good as gone

If you're going for logical globalization effect, the ants are more important because it's beneficial for the food chain, and will affect humanity if its pressence is removed. Affecting more babies in the process.Therefore the life of a baby for the food chain's sake.

 

[zidane1strife]

If the basis is ethics for humanity, the baby's life can't be given an equal price. Therefore the ant's are good as gone

If you're going for logical globalization effect, the ants are more important because it's beneficial for the food chain, and will affect humanity if its pressence is removed. Affecting more babies in the process.Therefore the life of a baby for the food chain's sake.

That is correct. I guess I should have elaborated more.

The example I'm making is this. Pressume there are ants and all the other what have you, the ecosystems nice and all. Yet we decide to bring a baby(say it reproduces asexually or that we mean a few babies.) into this world, once we bring one more are very likely to result. The grown babies are powerful enough to stop pretty much anything the ants can do, and keep bringing up babies. Eventually this act could endanger the whole ant species if not all life on the planet(e.g. like humanity's done). Is it worth it bringing the baby into the world in such a scenario? Do you consider the baby to be as worthy or even worthier of this world than anything that came before it? Cause bringing the baby entails the possibility of destroying every living thing that came before it. If you consider the baby, or humanity unworthy of coming into being in this world, I'd like you to elaborate more .

Suppose rather than a baby and ants, we have humanity and the next stage in evolution. We know that if we bring such a higher being into this world, it could entail more of its kin will come into this world. Such beings once they develop could endanger the entirety of not just humanity but the whole world, and it would be beyond our power to do anything about it, just like the ants. Thus if you agree that humanity is worthy of coming into this world despite the possibility it'd endanger all other lifeforms, do you also agree that a higher lifeform is worthy of coming into this world? Knowing that it entails the possibility of the destruction of all lifeforms preceding it, including humanity. If you don't consider it worthy, please elaborate.

 

[KimB]

Humanity may have the capacity to end all life on Earth (I rather doubt we could actually do that, though we might succeed in setting the Earth back millions of years in a worst-case scenario), but it also has the capacity to extend life from Earth beyond the amount of time that the Earth is habitable, and may also have the capacity to prevent a disaster from making the Earth uninhabitable (such as a large asteroid impact, if detected long enough in advance).

So even though the potential is there for great danger, the potential is also there for something which no unintelligent life form could ever accomplish: moving life off of the Earth. Given that life on Earth is going to end no matter what we do, I'd say the benefits far, far outweigh the risks of having an intelligent life form.

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

depends on ones values.

what are the x ants gonna do with their lives?

what is the baby gonna do?

impossible to predict accurately.

the x ants might save the world (if you value that) by being in the right place at the right time

the baby may fly a plane into a skyscraper.

 

[Geo]

Baby what? Baby human? You're being awfully species-centric right there in the question!

 

[zidane1strife]

Humanity may have the capacity to end all life on Earth (I rather doubt we could actually do that, though we might succeed in setting the Earth back millions of years in a worst-case scenario), but it also has the capacity to extend life from Earth beyond the amount of time that the Earth is habitable, and may also have the capacity to prevent a disaster from making the Earth uninhabitable (such as a large asteroid impact, if detected long enough in advance).

So even though the potential is there for great danger, the potential is also there for something which no unintelligent life form could ever accomplish: moving life off of the Earth. Given that life on Earth is going to end no matter what we do, I'd say the benefits far, far outweigh the risks of having an intelligent life form.

Intelligence is a continuum, just like there are problems humans can solve that lower lifeforms cannot, there are things humans too would be powerless to stop, but an even higher lifeform may easily deal with.

So you agree? A higher lifeform able to traverse the celestial landscape, and freely colonize most any system... a lifeform capable of manipulating matter if not reality at its most basic of lvls, with intellects far beyond a human's tilts your balance in its favor? For you it is worth it, it is worth risking humanity and all life in this planet, to allow progress, evolution and life to've a greater chance at survival?(not to mention richer and more complex interactions and purposes for civilization and its members.)

 

[Natoma]

Of course we have much more to offer. We actually have the capacity for directed change. Nothing else on the planet can claim that. If humans suddenly ceased to exist, the planet would be very different from if any other single specific species suddenly ceased to exist.

Plants?

They'd probably cause a hell of a lot more difference on the planet if they disappeared than we would.

 

[RussSchultz]

Plants?

Not a single species.

 

[Natoma]

Not a single species.

Details details.