what makes human life more valuable than spiders'?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

prothero
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 01:37 pm
@manored,
[QUOTE=manored;88766]But, in the end, you are killing either way, so there is no point in not killing spiders due to any sense of morality, unless your sense of morality says spiders are nice and mosquitos worthless =))[/QUOTE]The third possibility is that one "respects" the natural order of things as having wisdom in its own right and chooses "non interference". A form of "non violence" or ahimsa.

[QUOTE=manored;88766]We go too far when we kill ourselves. Anything else is acceptable =))[/QUOTE]The notion of "man is the measure of all things" is as ancient as the Greeks but so also is the notion that nature is wondrously self ordered and self sustaining (cosmos).

[QUOTE=manored;88766]Nature is not balanced, thats an childish human delusion. It just happens to change too slowly to be noticed, but, left to its own devices, nature would eventually create one or more lifeforms that would be too sucessful and break food chains and weebs everwhere, leading to massive extinction and perhaps the end of life. )[/QUOTE]No one would argue that nature does not change or that extinction and even mass extinctions are not part of the "natural order of things". The difference is in whether one thinks that nature has its own purposes and means. Is the universe indifferent and accidental or purposeful and goal directed? It is a deeper metaphysical orientation that answers the question. Should we live in harmony with nature or should we dominate and alter nature to suit our purposes and goals; in some sense naturalism versus materialism.

[QUOTE=manored;88766]The proof is us, we seem to be this first "accident" from "mother nature" =))[/QUOTE]In some sense the question is ancient "Are we part of creation or the purpose of creation?" Materialistic mechanistic determinism and transcendent religious views give the same answer "man has dominion". On the other hand spiritual or immanent theistic views (veneration of nature or views of the divine working through nature) give the opposite answer (harmony or stewardship not dominion).

[QUOTE=manored;88766]I wonder why people suddently started wanting to protect these abstract notions, maybe too much free time or total lack of faith in humanity. (Aka: belief that randow, but somewhat self-balancing events, can keep we alive better than ourselves)[/QUOTE]The key there is your assertion that nature consists of random, purposeless events instead of nature being a self organizing and self sustaining system (colliding or opposing worldviews). The worldview of environmentalists versus the promoters of continuing development. Personally I have no problem with the eradication of small pox but hunting dolphins or whales to extinction makes me anxious. IMV we are part of the creation not the purpose of it, and we dramatically alter nature at our own peril. There is a maximal sustainable population of humans and we are beyond it. Interestingly we have the technology and the science to balance our population with available natural resources and to eliminate hunger and much disease but we lack the political structures and the social consensus to implement any such scheme on the necessary global level. I do think there is a new worldview developing which shows more respect for nature and other life forms for "harmony" over unbriddled dominion, alteration and exploitation.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 08:52 pm
@Shinhyung,
The unlikelihood that they will share any of our genes.
 
prothero
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 09:04 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;88918 wrote:
The unlikelihood that they will share any of our genes.

Actually they share quite a few of your genes. The genetic evidence for all of life from a common origin is rather impressive.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 12:42 pm
@prothero,
prothero;88788 wrote:
The third possibility is that one "respects" the natural order of things as having wisdom in its own right and chooses "non interference". A form of "non violence" or ahimsa.
Indeed this possibility exists, but as I see it it is just as moraly correct as any of the other options. After all, killing a man and letting a man die dont seen very different, morally speaking.

prothero;88788 wrote:

The notion of "man is the measure of all things" is as ancient as the Greeks but so also is the notion that nature is wondrously self ordered and self sustaining (cosmos).

No one would argue that nature does not change or that extinction and even mass extinctions are not part of the "natural order of things". The difference is in whether one thinks that nature has its own purposes and means. Is the universe indifferent and accidental or purposeful and goal directed? It is a deeper metaphysical orientation that answers the question. Should we live in harmony with nature or should we dominate and alter nature to suit our purposes and goals; in some sense naturalism versus materialism.

In some sense the question is ancient "Are we part of creation or the purpose of creation?" Materialistic mechanistic determinism and transcendent religious views give the same answer "man has dominion". On the other hand spiritual or immanent theistic views (veneration of nature or views of the divine working through nature) give the opposite answer (harmony or stewardship not dominion).
Ah, I see what you mean, these notions of that nature is wise and should be left alone are related to people's belief in higher purposes and things. I agree with that.

prothero;88788 wrote:

The key there is your assertion that nature consists of random, purposeless events instead of nature being a self organizing and self sustaining system (colliding or opposing worldviews). The worldview of environmentalists versus the promoters of continuing development. Personally I have no problem with the eradication of small pox but hunting dolphins or whales to extinction makes me anxious. IMV we are part of the creation not the purpose of it, and we dramatically alter nature at our own peril. There is a maximal sustainable population of humans and we are beyond it. Interestingly we have the technology and the science to balance our population with available natural resources and to eliminate hunger and much disease but we lack the political structures and the social consensus to implement any such scheme on the necessary global level. I do think there is a new worldview developing which shows more respect for nature and other life forms for "harmony" over unbriddled dominion, alteration and exploitation.
Indeed we are yet to achieve the level of general advancement (as in reunion of all fields, technologic, social, ideologic, etc) necessary to trully know what we can and cannot do winhout consequences for ourselves, but I dont think that ecology, at least as I see it out there in the world, will be beneficial. Actually it is damaging, rather than fixing our goverments and social structures, we try to be "green" before we are ready for it, and thus waste precious time.

Im my opinion what humanity should do now is have the planet "bear with it" for a little longer while it fixes itself before trying to fix the mess it has done. Maybe it can do both at once, but only if ecology doesnt calls attention away from our social problems and winder their solving like it seens to do for me.

prothero;88920 wrote:
Actually they share quite a few of your genes. The genetic evidence for all of life from a common origin is rather impressive.
But very little compared to other mammals, giving special attention to rats, whom share, if I am not mistaken, 95% of our dna, and whom big spiders eat... =)
 
no1author
 
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 11:39 am
@Shinhyung,
My opinion is:
We are not worth more than something else.Scientifical speaking were simply another Animal species, also nature made it the way that the strongest survives aka. Might is Right.

No1Author
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:32 pm
@no1author,
no1author;89623 wrote:
My opinion is:
We are not worth more than something else.Scientifical speaking were simply another Animal species, also nature made it the way that the strongest survives aka. Might is Right.

No1Author
Indeed, worthy is a human idea. If I am lost in a desert island a piece of steel that I can use as a weapon is worth more than a piece of gold, wich is heavy and soft.
 
Judges-Vs-Poets
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:46 pm
Your question seemed to evolve. The first one sounds like a trap. The second ... go ask Socrates.

-should really re-read these things; double reflection will do that to a person.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 04:34 pm
@Shinhyung,
Well, spiders haven't given their opinion on the matter....
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 05:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;106458 wrote:
Well, spiders haven't given their opinion on the matter....
I love that argument =)
 
IntoTheLight
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 06:10 pm
@Shinhyung,
We have better marketing and advertising than Spiders do which, in the global economy, gives us the edge.

-ITL-
 
awoelt
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 07:26 pm
@Shinhyung,
i base my opinion on that on my religion and the whole "we are gods children" thing. but there is more to it. killing someone is outlawed by society. killing spiders is standard in society. plus if you squish a spider who cares. he won't do anything. we are bigger so our loved ones will be hurt by our deaths. so justice will be pursued and it is a whole other discussion whether is is justice or revenge. might make a good thread. it takes someone with mental disability to viciously violate that social law. sometimes even in the case of killing kittens or puppies. that's all i can add. good luck


ANGER!:brickwall:
 
George phil
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 06:01 pm
@Shinhyung,
i thimnk that as spiders and humans differ so much, we cannot love them, nor can we fully comphrehend them. How can we draw comparisions between the two and give a spider the same rights a a human. 'Do not love our neighbour as youselfm his tastes my differ/' - George Bernard Shaw
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 06:07 pm
@Shinhyung,
A human's life is more valuable than a spiders because I say so. I strongly doubt there's a human alive who will take a bullet for a spider.

Values were never intellectually justified in the first place. The brain is the lawyer of the heart and the gonads.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong....
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 11:26 pm
@Shinhyung,
The notion that all things are of "equal" value. Is really a notion in which value itself would have no meaning?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 11:28 pm
@Shinhyung,
I doubt that there is anything equal anywhere, at least on this side of the grave.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 01:16 am
@Shinhyung,
Humans make human life more valuable than spiders. As a value creating being, a human has the capability to make himself more valuable than other things if he so decides.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 02:52 am
@Theaetetus,
When I come across a situation like this I usually say to myself something like. "I'm sorry spider, I respect you but this is not the place for you." I'm not a vegetarian so something similar applies when I eat a fish or a steak.

It would be more difficult to respect a brown recluse that just killed a family member (God forbid).

It would also be more difficult to respect a human that just killed a family member (God forbid). I think it would be more difficult to respect the human than the spider.

Point being: killing the spider doesn't necessarily mean you disrespect it or even devalue its life really. I guess its something like the way the Native Americans respected the buffalo.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 01:43 am
@Shinhyung,
I would say that humans do indeed create an important type of value. One might call them neocortex values.

That we value food is inescapable. But the values attached to our concepts/metaphors is something else, is it not? For men will starve or kill for an ideal. I like to apply Jung to our self-created values --and are not even these strongly influenced? The archetypes have a significant flexibility. A individual edits their contingent content, as he is seduced/convinced by ideology that increases his sense of power/pleasure. It's as if his "metaphysical" or conceptual system is a rudder on the energy that is perhaps for more traditional souls associated with religion in the usual sense.
Aren't their monks who sweep before them in order to not kill insects? And others, powered perhaps by the same root energy, will operate death camps.....
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 03:18 pm
@George phil,
George;109661 wrote:
i thimnk that as spiders and humans differ so much, we cannot love them, nor can we fully comphrehend them. How can we draw comparisions between the two and give a spider the same rights a a human. 'Do not love our neighbour as youselfm his tastes my differ/' - George Bernard Shaw
We would need to prevent spiders from eating their relatives, what would probally lead then to extinction =)

So, yeah, we cant apply human rights to spiders, and probally to nothing that is not human.
 
buffalobill90
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 03:57 pm
@Shinhyung,
Consciousness is what makes human life more valuable than spider life. A spider has no conscious mind since it lacks the necessary cerebral apparatus to sustain conscious experience; therefore, spiders are not conscious of the harm inflicted on them, whereas humans are - the conscious experience of harm is pain. Spiders are not entitled to respect, but conscious humans are since they are capable of conscious suffering.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/02/2020 at 09:03:01