THE MORAL STATUS OF ANIMALS

[David E]

What rights should animals have and why?

If one could save either a human child or 10 chimpanzees from a burning building which should one save?

Would the person who saved the chimps rather than the human have done something morally wrong?

[Furrowed Brow]

Interesting question; I look at chimps and see a fellow primate. They are quite like me.

Don’t think there is a universal rule on this one, but I’d certainly go for human child first, but feel terrible about not being able to save the chimps.

Once you decide that human child is worth more to you than one chimp the distinction is qualitative. It does not matter if it was a hundred chimps or a thousand. It is not a matter of numbers.

[TXatheist]

What rights should animals have and why?

I believe animals have the same rights to peace and existence that humans do. Once our own existence becomes threatened by them, the "survival of one's species" kicks in and we do what is necessary to prevail. Of course, we also hunt and kill animals. When it is done for food, it is still within the "survival of one's species." One could argue that when it is done for sport, it shows that we hold humans in a higher regard than animals. Which leads me too...

If one could save either a human child or 10 chimpanzees from a burning building which should one save?

The human child. Again, I see it as the survival of one's own species.

It is also natural for us to hold human life in higher regard than animal life. We cannot identify with or love an animal as we do a human being. We can come close. For instance, people who have owned certain pets for many years, such as a dog, can feel a great attachment to the pet and even love the pet and consider it a part of the family. But when it comes down to it, if there were a situation where it was either the dog's life or their child's life, the child will win every time. No person in their right mind would save their dog, in turn letting their child perish.

Like Furrowed Brow, I would feel terrible about not being able to save the chimps, but this is technically a "no win" situation where death is going to occur no matter what. And in this case, I choose to go for the child first.

I also agree that it is not a matter of numbers. If it were 1,000 chimps against one child, I would still choose the child.

Would the person who saved the chimps rather than the human have done something morally wrong?

I do not think so. I think there would be some pretty upset people with a lot of questions for that person. But the morally wrong thing to do would be to simply sit back and watch with indifference while they all died. That would show a blatant disregard for life in general.

By definition, morality is a question of "right" versus "wrong". It is right to save lives and wrong to disregard life. But some would say it is wrong to save an animal over a human. I think, therefore, there may be no way to prove one way or the other; it seems to me that it is just a matter of opinion.

[David E]

I also agree that it is not a matter of numbers. If it were 1,000 chimps against one child, I would still choose the child.

I'm inclined to think chimps are sufficiently close relatives that numbers do matter. If it had been one chimp against one human child I would agree that we should go with our own species. But even there I'm not as sure that's a valid moral principle rather than mere specieism as I'd like to be.

I tend to agree with Peter Singer that the primary consideration in regard to the treatment of animals should be their capacity to suffer rather than their intelligence. Drawing a firm dividing line between sapient beings and brute animals as a justification for the way we treat animals seems mostly just an after the fact rationalization for our natural tendency to favor our own kind.


The human child. Again, I see it as the survival of one's own species.

The death of one child is not a threat to the survival of the human species.

It is also natural for us to hold human life in higher regard than animal life.

Yes, but natural is not equivalent to morally right.

It seems to me that much of what's said concerning this issue, not just now but almost every time I've seen it discussed, is largely irrelevent. We simply instinctively favor our own kind and then, if we're inclined to think about it at all, come up with ad hoc justifications for that instinct.

[TXatheist]

I tend to agree with Peter Singer that the primary consideration in regard to the treatment of animals should be their capacity to suffer rather than their intelligence. Drawing a firm dividing line between sapient beings and brute animals as a justification for the way we treat animals seems mostly just an after the fact rationalization for our natural tendency to favor our own kind.

That's a very good point. Deciding whether to save one human child or 1,000 chimps could be weighed by the total amount of suffering that can be spared. If we apply morality here as "the right thing to do is reduce the total amount of suffering," then I suppose saving 1,000 chimps would be the "moral" thing to do. Yet we do feel the immediate need to save the child instead because of our bond to him/her through intelligence and familiarity. It is instinct as well, as you point out later.

The human child. Again, I see it as the survival of one's own species.

The death of one child is not a threat to the survival of the human species.

It doesn't have to be an outright threat in order for a person to be inclined on account of this reason. I think it is more of a subconscious thought that is enough to influence one's actions, rather than a conscious rationalization. Again, instinct.

Honestly, now that I think about it, I would imagine sympathy plays a big part. We sympathize with the human child in a way that we either do not or cannot with animals/chimps. We still do sympathize with the chimps, but our sympathy is stronger with the child. But then we need to answer, "why would we sympathize with the child more than the chimps?" And again I think it comes back to intelligence and familiarity. The child is "one of us."

It is also natural for us to hold human life in higher regard than animal life.

Yes, but natural is not equivalent to morally right.

It seems to me that much of what's said concerning this issue, not just now but almost every time I've seen it discussed, is largely irrelevent. We simply instinctively favor our own kind and then, if we're inclined to think about it at all, come up with ad hoc justifications for that instinct.

I quite agree with that.

[kayky]

I'm sorry, people. I love animals, but they do not have the same value as a human being. And I challenge any naysayer here to ignore the cries of that human child while rescuing those chimps. I'd say the reality of that situation would be far different than the theories presented here.

[TXatheist]

I'm sorry, people. I love animals, but they do not have the same value as a human being. And I challenge any naysayer here to ignore the cries of that human child while rescuing those chimps. I'd say the reality of that situation would be far different than the theories presented here.

I'm not sure if you are referring to my comments, but trust me, if the situation arose for me, I'd go for the kid, plain and simple. We can debate logic and morality and say maybe the "right" thing to do is save the chimps, therefore reducing the amount of suffering, but when it comes down to it, I'm still going for the kid, no question about it. The arguments for the chimps look great on paper, but we all know what we would do in reality.

[kayky]

I wasn't referring to anyone specifically...but I understand what you are saying. I am relieved to hear it.

[Artheos]

I agree with the perspective that the human child is the right choice.

In the wake of human rights improvements in many areas, that seems almost against the grain, yet at the same time, it feels repugnant to choose any animal life over a human life, especially a defenseless one.

[David E]

There's no disputing that we almost all have that same instinctive response.

What I'm interested in is whether we can give a good argument for it. One that doesn't amount to nothing more than a prejudice in favor of one's own kind---especially given how our modern moral system is so much focused on overcoming our natural in-group biases.

Alternate scenario: what if it was an intelligent alien child or a human adult?

What about an intelligent robot vs a human?