Are you an anthropocentric fundamentalist?

[politicus]

Are human lives always and in all situations more important than other kinds of life forms?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes.

[bedstuy]

Of course.

The tricky situation is when you get into the idea of valuing human life in a cost-benefit analysis as a statistical outcome from a government policy. 

So, we put a monetary value on human life in that type of situation.  Like we say for example, you could say one human life is worth $1 million for example or one human life year lost is worth $100k.  If a policy that reduces mercury pollution costs $100 million dollars but saves 2,000 lives, we say that it's worth it. 

In the vein, you might have a policy that regards animal lives, like an endangered species act.  Maybe a policy in Africa to protect endangered rhinos costs money that could go to their starving population or maybe the income from poaching gives income to desperately poor people and that saves lives.  So, arguably, we're choosing elephants, rhinos, lions, etc over third world poor people.

The difference to me is that you're never going to compare a rhino life to a human life.  In that type of policy, you're valuing the continued biodiversity of the earth and the health of our ecosystem, not the lives of individual rhinos.   

[Oakvale]

Not really, no.

[VPH]

I'll lean to yeah. I get crap on this from my school's debate squad (which I used to be part of). They always try to compare it to Hitler viewing the Jewish people as animals. Also, they always ask what exactly delineates animal versus human in evolutionary history. I advise them that they're being ridiculous. Look to the scientific definition of human. Also, they hound me and claim that I would abuse animals because I value humans more. I mean, that's insanity. Just because if I value human life slightly more than other forms of life does not mean I don't value animals and plants. It is precisely because I value those lives that I consider myself environmentalist.

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes.

(Normal)

Frightening how close the results are. Hopefully they are either 1) jokes, 2) misunderstandings of the question and/or 3) technically disagreeing on the grounds that the live of a random microbe or plankton is more valuable than Hitler or Charles Manson.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I value sapient beings most of all. Whether that is a category exclusively occupied by humanity is up to you, though I would disagree in some respects.

[traininthedistance]

Theoretically yes.  In practice no– the long term survival of our species (to say nothing of not just surviving, but thriving) depends on our behaving as if other forms of life have intrinsic value and deserve some measure of protection, even at the expense of short-term GDP or whatever.

It's one thing to, say, laugh at the idea that "trees have standing"... but that sort of standing is exactly what prevents us from collapsing like Easter Island.  And it's not like "standing" in general isn't a legal fiction to begin with.

[TNF]

Yes (normal)

I disagree with the idea that animals should have 'rights' in any real respect, especially since 'animal rights' as an ideology leads you in some very strange directions. Obviously I don't think people should be able to wantonly abuse animals or anything like that, but I think it's kind of absurd to argue that animals have any inherent value by virtue of being animals, nor do I think they're deserving of 'rights' that we currently allow only human beings.

[Lumine]

It could be a mixture of the misanthrope and the cynic in me talking, but No.

[ingemann]

It's really a sliding scale.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i am an anthropomorphic fundamentalist.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

i am an anthropomorphic fundamentalist.

Is that another word for "furry?"

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Yes (human).

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i am an anthropomorphic fundamentalist.

Is that another word for "furry?"

yes

[Simfan34]

Yes (normal)

I disagree with the idea that animals should have 'rights' in any real respect, especially since 'animal rights' as an ideology leads you in some very strange directions. Obviously I don't think people should be able to wantonly abuse animals or anything like that, but I think it's kind of absurd to argue that animals have any inherent value by virtue of being animals, nor do I think they're deserving of 'rights' that we currently allow only human beings.

I fully agree with TNF. Oh dear...

[Mr. Smith]

It could be a mixture of the misanthrope and the cynic in me talking, but No.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (normal)

I disagree with the idea that animals should have 'rights' in any real respect, especially since 'animal rights' as an ideology leads you in some very strange directions. Obviously I don't think people should be able to wantonly abuse animals or anything like that, but I think it's kind of absurd to argue that animals have any inherent value by virtue of being animals, nor do I think they're deserving of 'rights' that we currently allow only human beings.

I fully agree with TNF. Oh dear...

I fully agree with TNF and Simfan! Ooooh deeeear....

[fivex]

No (Normal)
Obviously in general a human's life is more valuable than an animal's life, but that's not the question here.
The question is: is a human's life always more valuable than an animal's? The answer to that clearly no.
To give a somewhat silly example of why: Would you sacrifice your pet dog's life to save the life of, say, a serial killer?

[Simfan34]

No (Normal)
Obviously in general a human's life is more valuable than an animal's life, but that's not the question here.
The question is: is a human's life always more valuable than an animal's? The answer to that clearly no.
To give a somewhat silly example of why: Would you sacrifice your pet dog's life to save the life of, say, a serial killer?

Is that because of the intrinsic value of the dog or because of your feelings for the dog relative to that of the serial killer?

[Sol]

Pretty much-- though, say, intelligent aliens would theoretically be on equal ground with humans.

[Goldwater]

Yes (normal)

I disagree with the idea that animals should have 'rights' in any real respect, especially since 'animal rights' as an ideology leads you in some very strange directions. Obviously I don't think people should be able to wantonly abuse animals or anything like that, but I think it's kind of absurd to argue that animals have any inherent value by virtue of being animals, nor do I think they're deserving of 'rights' that we currently allow only human beings.

I fully agree with TNF. Oh dear...

I fully agree with TNF and Simfan! Ooooh deeeear....

And I agree with all three of you. This is a strange issue indeed.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes (normal)

I disagree with the idea that animals should have 'rights' in any real respect, especially since 'animal rights' as an ideology leads you in some very strange directions. Obviously I don't think people should be able to wantonly abuse animals or anything like that, but I think it's kind of absurd to argue that animals have any inherent value by virtue of being animals, nor do I think they're deserving of 'rights' that we currently allow only human beings.

I fully agree with TNF. Oh dear...

I fully agree with TNF and Simfan! Ooooh deeeear....

And I agree with all three of you. This is a strange issue indeed.

Is it really that strange?

I don't really see anything peculiar about giving animals some amount of rights. Obviously I don't think that horses should be allowed to vote or something, but I do feel that species with the capacity to feel pain should have the right to not suffer needlessly, and that social animals should have the right to enjoy non-solitary lives etc.

[SWE]

Yes (normal)

I disagree with the idea that animals should have 'rights' in any real respect, especially since 'animal rights' as an ideology leads you in some very strange directions. Obviously I don't think people should be able to wantonly abuse animals or anything like that, but I think it's kind of absurd to argue that animals have any inherent value by virtue of being animals, nor do I think they're deserving of 'rights' that we currently allow only human beings.

I fully agree with TNF. Oh dear...

I fully agree with TNF and Simfan! Ooooh deeeear....

And I agree with all three of you. This is a strange issue indeed.

Is it really that strange?

I don't really see anything peculiar about giving animals some amount of rights. Obviously I don't think that horses should be allowed to vote or something, but I do feel that species with the capacity to feel pain should have the right to not suffer needlessly, and that social animals should have the right to enjoy non-solitary lives etc.

Moderate Hero

[Rockefeller GOP]

Uh, of course...