Should Human Life Be Valued Above Animal Life?

Perspective Writers' Votes
Loading Discussion

Should human life 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.

  • 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.

  • Humans have a responsibility to take care of Earth and its species as they are responsibly for mass extinction and cruelty against animals. Until humans understand this humanity cannot really grasp the weight of responsibility we have.

  • 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 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. As they rely on humans for survival, it is logical to not value their lives above humans'.

  • 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.

  • 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’s deficiency needs are met.

  • There is no other creature on the planet with the self-awareness, consciousness and ability to completely ignore instinct and act by such high degrees of free will. This makes us more advanced, filled with incredible potential, and thus more valuable compared to animal life.

  • At the very least only animals of a certain IQ or Encephalization Quotient should be valued on a footing near to humans. This draws a necessary line between creatures that may be considered closer to motile, reactive nervous systems of little to no intelligence, and more sensitive, conscious organisms with greater self awareness.

  • Humans make the most valuable contributions to the world and therefore should be valued above animals.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • People have a reasonable right to the dereliction of this rule during a crisis.

  • No species wants to be extinct. There's no point valuing a species above another if not from a very egocentric point of view. Human achievements have no meaning outside humanity.

  • The statement is ill-posed without reference to the system of morality in question. For example, from a nihilistic standpoint, neither human nor animal life should be valued above the other.

  • All life should be valued equally.