whose life is more valuable

You ask me which life holds more value, that of a human or of an animal.

I say, do you know both are animals?

And if you do know that but are convinced a pigs life is less valuable than that of a human because a human can build, help and create things but a pig cannot, I ask, does the suffering and pain humans continue to create hold any meaning when evaluating the value of life?

A pig cannot contribute anything to anyone in your opinion, but a human can yet a human can also take away joy, happiness, peace and life.

And if we judge the life of an animal, based on how much they contribute to others, then surely we can acknowledge bees are above humans, correct?

If all humans disappeared overnight the planet would thrive – after some time of course, as there would be a lot of chaos for the first few months –  yet without bees we would lose many plants that we rely on right now*. Add butterflies and worms to that group and without them, we are almost starving.

So now we have a different scale:

  • Bees, worms and butterflies.
  • Humans.
  • Pigs.

I also ask you, do you have any evidence to prove that a human’s life is more valuable than that of other animals? Do you have the evidence to back up your claims?

I presented the evidence that we rely on bees for pollination and that without them we would probably starve but I still do not think this is enough of an evidence to put the life of a bee above the life of a human. They are both equal until proven unequal.

Note – Yes, some species do rely on humans for survival but only because just by existing we are threatening them, so we are not saviours but perpetrators.

How do we define the value of a life? I do not know, therefore, I do not claim one life matters more than others. But you do so you surely have scientific evidence, correct?

You don’t?

See, it’s like talking about morality.

Since morality is subjective we cannot claim right and wrong are known to all beings. Right is right for one society while it may be wrong for another.

That’s when we use logic and common sense to create a society that benefits humans in general. No, morality is still not objective but there are certain rules that are better than others at making people thrive and succeed in life.

The same goes with defining the value of life. We can use logic and common sense to not harm others as we are aware that they feel pain and harming them is not necessary, but it won’t change the fact that there are no universal rules of what is right or wrong.

We just do what is better for one species in general because if we had no rules and laws at all – even if certain individuals do not agree with them – we would live in chaos. (I do have many thoughts on morality and why morality being subjective makes an even stronger case for people going vegan.)

It’s the same with asking which race is superior. Well, neither as we have no evidence to say one is. But white supremacists, Nazis and racists will claim they have an answer.

They, of course, do not.

Those of us who are not white supremacists, Nazis or racists, and those of us who do not eat other animals, have no evidence to prove we are far superior to other animals – or other races – therefore we treat everyone equally, or as equally as we possibly can.

Jut some food for thought.

Tanja

whose life is more valuable