Human life should be valued above animal life.

Perspective Writers' Votes
Loading Discussion

Human life should be valued above animal life in the case that only one can be preserved.

Pros
Cons
  • It is our biological directive to preserve our own species at any cost.

  • Humans are more intelligent than animals.

  • Humans provide the best chance for life to spread beyond the confines of Earth, so humans are good for life in general.

  • Humanity may not be the superior lifeform on Earth, it may even not be better than any other. But, ours is the only species that can appreciate the beauty of the entire biosphere.

  • Humanity currently holds the greatest potential to unravel the mysteries of our universe, traverse stars and recreate life itself with cloning technology. We are unlikely to see such great technological advances again for millennia, if at all, should the human race perish.

  • Humans have to recognise their own importance to recognise that they could have responsibilities to the planet and its species. Failure to recognise this special niche means a failure to recognise the possibility of such a responsibility. allallt.wordpress.com

  • Prevalent religions state that humans are directed to subdue and have dominion over the earth, including animals.

  • It is necessary to value human life above animal life in order to assert human equality. Afterall, we already acknowledge a hierarchical standard, but to apply that specifically to individuals is to claim the the weaker or less intelligent should be valued less than the stronger and more intelligent.

  • Value is a construct that is innate to humans alone, without that sort of discernment, nothing has an assigned value. Though it is worth recalling that animals are necessary, the premise is namely predicate on human existence. I should say, just as some creatures can be harmful to certain environments in numbers to large to be sustainable, the same can and should be said of human beings in general.

  • It would be irrational to destroy ourselves for the sake of animals. Any benefit we get from saving animals is lost because we are dead.

  • Most domesticated animals would be unfit to survive in nature in the event of human extinction.

  • The human right to life is mutual agreement - it comes with a responsibility to preserve other humans' right to life. Animals are not capable of respecting the right to life. If the dog wants to kill the deer, it kills the deer. If we respect all animals' right to life, we have to prevent animals from killing each other, and treat every instance of carnivorous predation as a crime. So the human responsibility is to protect human life first and foremost, as humans are returning the favour.

  • Only humans are capable of understanding art, science and philosophy. A single human being has the potential to change the world drastically, improving it for human and animal alike. No animal is capable of this. Human lives have incredible potential, and are thus more worth saving than an animal, which has no such potential.

  • Humans do not have any moral obligations to other animals.

  • Pragmatically, policies that do not prioritize human deficiency needs over the needs of animals are unlikely to garner sufficient support to be enacted, at least until most people‚Äôs deficiency needs are met.

  • If the human race is to progress, we cannot waste time debating if we should value other species above our own. This is not the time for the irrational favouring of animals.

  • This kind of value judgement cannot be generalized.

  • Humans cause more harm than good to the environment and so animals should be preserved in favor of humans.

  • Some animals are endangered, and these should be favored over humans, which are not endangered.

  • Humans are no different than animals.

  • Some animals are more sentient than some humans.

  • Animals should be preserved as to eradicate ethics. That is to say that an ethically neutral world (i.e one with no ethics) is preferable to one in which evil can prevail - even if that's at the expense of potential net good.

  • The earth has been around much longer than humans, and thousands of species of animals have also existed before us. If humans perish, non-human animals will go on without us without a problem, but we require them to survive.

  • Species is not a relevant trait when it comes to assessing the value of an animal's life.

  • As individuals we value what is close to us, what we care about personally. The majority of people will always consider certain animal's lives more important than the majority of human lives, as the animals in question are close to them and there are too many humans to care for all of them as individuals.

  • We cannot survive outside an environment, whereas we are just one (rather undesirable) component of their environment.

  • There is a term known as animism, which demonstrates how the world was once known to host a wide array of creatures in no from of hierarchy.