[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.