[hairofadog]

I haven't heard a great argument explaining why human life is objectively more valuable than animal life. The most common argument I hear, even from otherwise thoughtful people I know, is something along the lines of "because one is a human and the other is an animal, duh!" but I don't consider that to be a persuasive argument.

Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"? If that's the case, is the life of a person with a high IQ objectively more valuable than the life of a person with a lower IQ?

Is it because we think animals aren't capable of feeling fear, pain, anxiety, and love?

Is it a tribalism thing? If we assume that elephants, chimps, or whales are capable of some level of ethical reasoning, are they expected to also value human life higher than their own, or would that be considered immoral because they're "species traitors"? Is the "moral" expectation that a chimp would value chimp life higher, a dog would value dog life higher, and a human would value human life higher?

[dwaltrip]

If humans didn't highly value their own lives, they would be much less likely to survive and reproduce, and we wouldn't be here having this conversation.

> Is it because we think animals aren't capable of feeling fear, pain, anxiety, and love?

Historically, I think this was a common justification. Although, the conversation has shifted and will likely continue to do so, as we have realized that animals have many of the feelings that we have, even if it isn't exactly the same.

> Is the "moral" expectation that a chimp would value chimp life higher, a dog would value dog life higher, and a human would value human life higher?

Yes, most likely. Although the world would probably look very different if other animals were capable of discussing such things :)

[ohazi]

> If humans didn't highly value their own lives, they would be much less likely to survive and reproduce, and we wouldn't be here having this conversation.

This is obviously true, and if it ever came down to making a split-second decision about saving your own life, you would expect this trait to drive the show.

However, moral puzzlers like the trolley problem don't work the same way. You might know that "save the humans, let the dogs die" is the rational HN-approved answer, but you might also know that it's the cold, calculating, heartless answer that will land you a spot in hell if you don't feel at least a little bit bad about it.

You can simultaneously be hard-wired to save yourself and your human peers in a split-second decision, while also being disgusted by humanity as a whole, while also also feeling empathy for dogs as Good and Pure beings of endless affection that we adults clearly don't deserve.

At least the kids know what's what.

[Wowfunhappy]

> Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"?

IMO, yes. That, and, I think it's likely that most aren't self-aware, or are at least less self-aware.

> If that's the case, is the life of a person with a high IQ objectively more valuable than the life of a person with a lower IQ?

Possibly—it's just that trying to make that judgement opens up enormous possibilities for horrible outcomes! Just to scratch the surface, IQ tests are very rough measures of intelligence, because they rely heavily on cultural knowledge and are thus biased against certain cultures. You don't want to attempt to make life-and-death decisions based on fuzzy measures like that.

But, I'd posit you should choose to save a dolphin over a dog (and not just because dolphins are endangered).

[xiphias2]

This thinking is why having AGI is so scary. We are nothing compared to the computers that we are in the process of creating in terms of intelligence and self awareness.

I think AGI will kill humanity and there's nothing we can do about it, but I hope I'm not right.

[mewpmewp2]

I think it's mainly because of how we feel about losing human lives vs animal lives. So it's emotion based. I think all other reasoning/justification comes after our emotions. Anyone can think of reasons that differentiate humans from animals, but ultimately it is just how we feel about it. And for emotions, yes this is for evolutionary reasons.

If we were to consider human lives equal with animal life we would have to change so much it would not be practical so at current state it is not even something ww would consider so many of us simply try to ignore the issue.

[mam2]

You need to realize that hunans don't value tge life of other group of humans that much as well. This is the basis of slavery and many wars...

I think it was a point in history where something like one quarter of or men had already kiiled a guy once.

Get over the killing of meat

[MichaelZuo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_marginal_cases