Is human life more sacred than any other life?

[Antares]

Should human life be sacred above all other life? If so, why? We're as dependent upon the food/protection of the species chain as all other creatures. I don't get why our over population in the form of the unborn, (humans ok but not eggs we eat from chickens and ducks) is a cause to celebrate. I don't get the screwed up thinking of humanity. I'm not Peta supporter but they make more sense . . .

Why is a fertilized human egg so much more valuable than any other egg?

Besides survival of the species which we are far beyond . . .

That's my question too. Perhaps this question is good enough to have a separate discussion.

My opinion is that it isn't.

The only difference between the fertilized egg of a dog and the fertilized egg of a human, all it differs is the DNA; there's nothing sacred about these particles. From a nihilist's point of view, a human egg is no way better than a dog egg by any means.

[Ool]

What is sacred isn’t life. We’re always going to be alive. There is no death. What is sacred is happiness. You mustn’t cause suffering. That’s why it’s okay to kill animals but not to torture them.

The difference between humans and lower animals is that human beings have an understanding of death, so if you declared open season on people then they would anticipate being killed and be in a lot of stress, diminishing their quality of life.

That is why human life is considered “more sacred.” Because not respecting it means increasing their fear of death and hence the suffering that a human being experiences.

[azelismia]

What is sacred isn’t life. We’re always going to be alive. There is no death. What is sacred is happiness. You mustn’t cause suffering. That’s why it’s okay to kill animals but not to torture them.

The difference between humans and lower animals is that human beings have an understanding of death, so if you declared open season on people then they would anticipate being killed and be in a lot of stress, diminishing their quality of life.

That is why human life is considered “more sacred.” Because not respecting it means increasing their fear of death and hence the suffering that a human being experiences.


what makes you so sure that other animals don't comprehend death. I think they do.

[Antares]

And you think dolphins won't anticipate death and live in fear and paranoia if we can somehow communicate to them that we're declaring open season on them? Wouldn't that diminish their quality of life?

Edit: To Ool

[Homini Lupus]

I wouldn't define human life more sacred but it is somehow more important in a human's point of view since it can be useful to spread your genes or ideas or strategies. Using the same reasoning some animal life (that useful to humans) becomes more important than other. Obviously if you change the point of view (by example from the point of view of a bacterium) all the values change.

And by the way, for what I know dolphins understand death and in some occasions they commit suicide.

[Ool]

And you think dolphins won't anticipate death and live in fear and paranoia if we can somehow communicate to them that we're declaring open season on them? Wouldn't that diminish their quality of life?

If they’re smart enough to understand, then yes, and yes. That’s what sentience is.

But mostly animals just live in fear of pain. They have instinctive fears, many conditioned by a preference for self-preservation brought on by evolution. But they’re not aware of the purpose of those fears, and if you can circumvent their conditioned reflexes then suffering is eliminated and killing can be administered without torturous side effects.

Salvation myths try to do the same thing about man’s conscious fear of death, i.e. they wish to kill people as humanely as possible…





Ool added to this post, 8 minutes and 48 seconds later...

what makes you so sure that other animals don't comprehend death. I think they do.

Please…! Most people don’t understand death…

Just because you feel apprehension when confronted with the unknown and because you have self-preservation instincts when facing potential predators doesn’t mean you have any idea what death is.

[thod]

You can have a relationship with another human being that has more existential value than a relationship with an animal. Thus a human life is worth more to us than the life of an animal. Of course if you go down to the nihilist level than neither has any value at all.

Just because you do not have a relationship with all other humans does not mean that they have no value to others. So to avoid a bloodbath we agree not to harm other humans. I don't kill his loved ones and he doesn't kill my loved ones is the agreement. No such agreement exists between men and animals.

We are obliged to kill animals out of conflicts of interests. They taste good for one thing and we are evolved to eat meat. But we must also kill them to prevent them eating the crops we grow, as in rabbits, or to prevent disease spreading, as with rats.

When similar conflicts of interest occur with humans we get war which is usually bad for both sides since its an even contest.

[Antares]

If they’re smart enough to understand, then yes, and yes. That’s what sentience is.

But mostly animals just live in fear of pain. They have instinctive fears, many conditioned by a preference for self-preservation brought on by evolution. But they’re not aware of the purpose of those fears, and if you can circumvent their conditioned reflexes then suffering is eliminated and killing can be administered without torturous side effects.

Salvation myths try to do the same thing about man’s conscious fear of death, i.e. they wish to kill people as humanely as possible…




Ool added to this post, 8 minutes and 48 seconds later...



Please…! Most people don’t understand death…

Just because you feel apprehension when confronted with the unknown and because you have self-preservation instincts when facing potential predators doesn’t mean you have any idea what death is.

Then what qualifies as an understanding of death? Other than that you're no longed alive? I think any sane person understands that. What is it but that? Why does everything have to be philosophical?

[Ool]

Then what qualifies as an understanding of death? Other than that you're no longed alive? I think any sane person understands that. What is it but that? Why does everything have to be philosophical?

Okay, they understand the concept of non-existence.

They haven’t reached my level of understanding that non-existence does, in fact, not exist and that therefore there is no death. You need an understanding of what the statistical implications of an infinite event/phase space are for that.

But it is actually the former, lower level of understanding that makes death such a source of horror and, yes, people have that. So chalk up my previous remark to glib hastiness…


Not everything has to be philosophical, but the question of what kind of life is more valuable is a philosophical one.

[Enkidu]

I think that all life, human or otherwise is equally sacred. Yes, for life to continue there has to be death but I just see that as how things are. Life without death would be meaningless. Even if we have to kill other animals to survive that's just part of life, just as occasionally other animals kill humans for food.
All life is life and to say that some life is more sacred than others is just another way of saying its more important or better. Humans will think human life is the most important because as a species we want to survive. I wouldn't be surprised to find that dolphins for instance feel the same way about themselves

[ShaiGar]

That's my question too. Perhaps this question is good enough to have a separate discussion.

My opinion is that it isn't.

The only difference between the fertilized egg of a dog and the fertilized egg of a human, all it differs is the DNA; there's nothing sacred about these particles. From a nihilist's point of view, a human egg is no way better than a dog egg by any means.
Well you know my opinion. There are some inanimate objects worth more than some humans lives (books for example). I have a very Demons Head approach to the value of human life compared with the life of the biosphere and the other species on earth.





ShaiGar added to this post, 3 minutes and 7 seconds later...

What is sacred isn’t life. We’re always going to be alive. There is no death. What is sacred is happiness. You mustn’t cause suffering. That’s why it’s okay to kill animals but not to torture them.

The difference between humans and lower animals is that human beings have an understanding of death, so if you declared open season on people then they would anticipate being killed and be in a lot of stress, diminishing their quality of life.

That is why human life is considered “more sacred.” Because not respecting it means increasing their fear of death and hence the suffering that a human being experiences.
I've worked in a slaughterhouse and am very much in the opinion that the cattle who were walking up the ramp knew what was coming. You could feel it.

[sriv]

I've worked in a slaughterhouse and am very much in the opinion that the cattle who were walking up the ramp knew what was coming. You could feel it.

They probably smelt blood and instinctually were at unease. Or maybe your unconscious formed that opinion because you knew it was coming.

How do we define "sacred"? The word has a religious connotation, so I would prefer using "value".

I value human life more than other life. I am biased towards my own species and their continued existance. Any reason not to be?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

That's my question too. Perhaps this question is good enough to have a separate discussion.

My opinion is that it isn't.

The only difference between the fertilized egg of a dog and the fertilized egg of a human, all it differs is the DNA; there's nothing sacred about these particles. From a nihilist's point of view, a human egg is no way better than a dog egg by any means.
What do you mean by 'sacred'?

[ShaiGar]

They probably smelt blood and instinctually were at unease. Or maybe your unconscious formed that opinion because you knew it was coming.
I've considered that premise before. It's not one I'm entirely comfortable with. However since I cannot give a reasoned argument as to why not, I'm just going to have to respectfully disagree.

[Beery Swine]

I'd just like to say I voted yes, but with the qualification "as far as we know" and with the understanding that "sacred" doesn't necessarily have a religious connotation.

[Antares]

What do you mean by 'sacred'?

Important; valuable. Just as a nonreligious person would say "love is sacred".

[Ool]

Yes, for life to continue there has to be death but I just see that as how things are.

Wouldn’t there have to be death for life not to continue?

I’d say for life to continue there has to be life…

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Important; valuable. Just as a nonreligious person would say "love is sacred".
Well........it appears that most species value their own species above all other species. This is probably an evolutionary product that enhances survival. Since it appears to be hard-wired into our species (most, but certainly not all), then I would say that most people will answer yes to your question. Looking beyond this possible genetic component, I think there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any life is more valuable than another. However, there is also no evidence to suggest that any life is valuable at all.

[Enkidu]

Wouldn’t there have to be death for life not to continue?

I’d say for life to continue there has to be life…

For life to carry on and evolve, for a species to grow, the individuals must die. Death is a necessary part of life

[Nameless]

I think human life would be more sacred if it wasn't prone to human error, but it isn't. At the moment, I think it might only have a slight advantage for being more advanced. I guess I would attach potential to sacredness, but never state something as being more sacred overall.

[Ool]

For life to carry on and evolve, for a species to grow, the individuals must die. Death is a necessary part of life

No, it isn’t. All it takes for a species to grow is for more individuals to be born. As for evolution, even though natural selection involves the death of individuals in the non-designed, non-self-aware parts of complexity doesn’t mean that technology has to involve the same radical throw-away approach.

Nature is wasteful. We don’t have to be, though…

Think a little outside the box! Just because it’s what you’re used to doesn’t mean that’s what it has to be like. At least you cannot deduce the necessity from the existence of habit alone…

[rwyatt365]

[from the American heritage Dictionary]
sa·cred
adj.
1) Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2) Worthy of religious veneration.
3) Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4) Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person.
5) Worthy of respect; venerable.
6) Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

If one assumes the religious aspects of "sacred", then human life is indeed sacred - because (the Christian) God says so.

Stepping beyond religion, one can argue (and it is my personal opinion) that human-kind is no more worthy of respect or veneration than any other being. All life is special, unique, and to be treasured - but none above another. (To me), it is the conceit of humans to place ourselves above other creatures, and to ascribe "higher functions" to ourselves and deny them to other creatures.

Who's to say that a worm doesn't contemplate it's death, or that a bee doesn't enjoy flying? Even the most scientific examination is filtered by the human experience and is subject to human prejudices. We objectify other creatures so that we can exploit them without conscience.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a "tree-hugger" by any stretch of the imagination. I will swat a fly without a moments hesitation. But I'll give it three warnings to "stop buzzing around my head" before I bring out the heavy artillery - same as I would a person.

[SOMjunkie]

I like to call this "The Vegetarian's Argument". The PC view is to say that all life (at least animal life, no one wants to admit that plants are actually living beings yet) is sacred. And it's true. It's just that humans are "more sacred" than everything else. It's not elitisim or ego on which I base this presumption, but rather evolution. Simply put, human beings are the dominant species on the planet, and it's for a reason.

We can look at this from two standpoints. We can take the religious view, saying that God chose man to spread His/Her Word, hence He/She considers our lives more sacred than say, a cat or a dog (If I believed in God, I would think He/She is genderless, but calling Him/Her "It" just seems offensive). On the other hand, we could take the scientific view point to say that evoultion has made us the most intelligent beings on this planet, granting us the ability to conquer it, hence it is part of the Universe's grand scheme for us to survive.

Either way you look at it, I'm not condoning cruelty to animals or neglect of the environment. Quite the opposite. As I stated earlier, I view all life as sacred, but I didn't spend the last couple hundred millenia climbing my way up the food chain to be told what I can and can't eat.

[jesse]

Human life is just another manifestation of life and inherently is not more sacred than any other. Humans are larger than many species and this does help in the survival department, but imagine if a massive chain of asteroids hit the earth and obliterated everything. Assuming everything goes, human life would be one species among many others in the sand.

I have heard that humanity likes to think of itself as the supreme form of life because it has created many civilizations and populated this planet. Ants have their own colonies but they are not dominant because they are minute in size compared to human civilization.

[tp6626]

Definitely not. We obviously have a self interest. Every other living organism probably thinks it is the most important life-form. The can't all be. Our conscience is complex enough for us to be able to spot the pattern and realize that we have no more importance than any other life form, or particle, for that matter.

Who was it that said something along the lines of:
"Space rockets, mountains, televisions... these are the things that hydrogen atoms do given around 5 billion years"

[rokxal]

Life and death are physical states and thus arbitrary. Assigning values to either of the two is meaningless.

[niffer]

I don't think human life is in any way more sacred than the life of a tulip. And the typical human life could rarely be considered as sacred as the life of an ancient tree, imo.

It's not as if the lives of many unfortunate humans are considered any more sacred than those of tulips in this day and age anyhow.

I mean, I'm not going to stop consuming other organisms because of my views on this. Because we're all equal, we all have an equal chance to consume each other, to be part of the food chain and survive.

I don't think we're more worthy of whatever just because we're more "sentient" creatures than any other. Sentient is just another attribute. Other creatures have many attributes that we don't have. What makes sentience so important?

What makes fear of pain so bad? It's just another process of dying. We'll all just go back into the earth eventually.

The Earth ages and changes as time goes on. Continents move. What makes one era more sacred than another? The human existance has been but a blip on the timeline of the Earth so far. What have we come to rescue it from?