What determines an entity's "right to life"

Since there's a fairly interesting discussion going on in a few different threads about why humans and/or animals have the right to life, I thought I'd try to consolidate it into a single thread.

NO ONE truly believes that all living things are entitled to the right to life. Using antibiotics, eating animals and/or plants, and swatting mosquitoes all end something's life, and very few people mourn the loss of any of those things killed (including most of you who claim they have the right to life).

Some people here have gone so far as to say that all animals (including humans) have an equal right to life. I ask you to try this thought experiment: If a person was able to save the life of either a cow or another person, would you really consider the options to be morally equivalent? Or would you, like me, consider them a monster if they saved the cow at the expense of the person?

Now I'm not talking about endangered animals, as that's a separate issue. I'm talking specificially about whether or not various individual animals have the RIGHT to life.

With that said, what is it about humans that elevates them above other animals? Furthermore, what is it that makes people more hesitant to kill higher mammals than stupid animals such as insects?

The way I see it, the best (only?) good criterion is intelligence. Human brains can process 20,000 teraflops of information (give or take 10,000 teraflops). Other animals are many orders of magnitude behind.

By 2025, the debate over civil rights (or at least recognition) of artificial intelligence will be heating up. Will these people who criticize the death of a cow simply because it has biological organs, eagerly oppose the recognition of an entity as intelligent as a human being because it LACKS biological organs? I, for one, hope not. When it comes to something having the right to life, merely having cells doesn't cut it, as far as I'm concerned. Complexity/intelligence is the only reasonable criterion.

 

Every species does have the right to live. Swatting an individual mosquito is much different than exterminating an entire species of mosquito, which is what I'm against.

You cannot really exclude the issue of endangered species either. An endangered species is automatically more important and valuable due to its rarity.

Humans consider their own species to be most important in most cases, but other animals have this same loyalty to their own kind. It is not unique to humans, so your instinct to protect other humans does not mean humans are indeed above all other creatures. That would be like tigers thinking they are the apex of earth's creation. Who's right? As highly intelligent species, humans can see the foolishness of this self-centered thought and embrace the concept that all life is sacred and we haven't the right to interfere.

Consider how important your family is to you. I do not find them of the same importance. My family is not important to you, but very important to me. They are all humans and have the same value though. Now extend that comparison to another species.

In another thread you questioned the basis for my concern about the consumption of cattle- it is simple, the consumption of meat contributes to habitat destruction which contributes to number of endangered animals. It's not so much the cows, but the other animals that are becoming threatened with extinction that concern me.

 

I'm mainly referring to your notion that eating meat is bad because the individual cow has the right to life.

I agree that endangered species should be protected...not because they have an inherent right to life, but because of the ways and potential ways they benefit humans, such as scientific research and pure aesthetics.

While you want me to say "both are equally right," I won't. The answer is "humans are right." It's not anthropocentricism (well, not primarily); it's just understanding what I consider to be the defining aspects of the right to life. I have some sympathy for the animal rights movement when it comes to animals such as dolphins. I plan to support civil rights for artificial intelligence when the day comes. So it can't be entirely attributed to anthropocentricism.

Why do you consider it immoral to destroy a group of cells, but morally acceptable to destroy an equally complex arrangement of silicon circuitry (my laptop/fish comparison in the other thread)? I, for one, do not. I'm hard-pressed to see any distinction between the two.

I'm surprised to see a non-religious person using such terminology as "sacred." I know you don't mean that in the religious sense, but I'm still confused as to what you think it is about biological life that makes it so "sacred."

The difference is that my family and your family have roughly the same levels of intelligence and complexity. The same does not hold with interspecies comparisons.

I'm very curious as to see which side of the AI civil rights debate most environmentalists will end up on. As far as I'm concerned, complexity just make more sense as a criterion for rights than cells.

 

I'm sure I've cited this essay on other threads, but it goes right to the question at hand here:

http://www.lifeprinciples.net/ModelTeachText.html

 

What a false, bigoted generalization.

What about Hindus?

In my opinion, the human race is shameful. We rely solely on people/things/animals/plants below us for everything in our lives. We're not the most intelligent lifeform on Earth (now that's just my opinion...who's to measure intelligence?), and we are by far not the strongest. The only reason we are at the top of the food chain is because we have taken advantage of the times and the resources available.

I guess, but intelligence isn't always everything.

Artificial intelligence is simply that. Artificial. It is manmade, not-living, inorganic. That's not to say it shouldn't be used, but to hold its 'life' as high as a human's or an animal's (I'm not using your cow example because I don't believe it's a good one) is morally wrong. Maybe your definition of 'the right to live' is simply to exist. But if a machine has the right to live and an animal doesn't, then there's just something a little screwy with that.

 

I think it's an interesting point, though. What exactly is it that were are trying to save when it comes to life? For a person, it's seems to be their consciousness. It's debatable whether machines will eventually have a conscience. They will most likely have intelligence in the future. We may find ourselves one day talking with an entity on the other end of the phone that we can't be sure is a person or machine. It may have intelligence and we may never be able to tell if it's a person or machine. It may have gone through many years of learning and become quite intelligent. How would we treat such an entity? It may not reproduce like a lifeform, but it could still have an intelligence and personality.

 

For that matter, how do we define artificial? We can say a machine's intelligence is 'artificial.' What about a person who is also made up of atoms, the same as those that are in the machine, arranged in a particular order. Is a person's intelligence any more or less artificial than some other non-lifeform entity?

 

I really truly feel sorry for people like Kandahar. What a bleak unfortunate life it must be to not appreciate to the fullest our companions on this fine earth. One doesn't even need to anthropomorphize animals, just appreciate their nonhuman qualities, there are many. Someone like Kandahar thinks animals are inferior to humans. Who knows why, perhaps they don't spend much time with other species, don't observe them. More likely it is a deeply imbedded cultural perception.
Animals amaze me and I am sad that some people do not have the capacity to be fascinated by the natural world.

 

I'm just trying to understand your point from a philosophical perspective. But as your post confirms, you obviously don't have any real reason for holding the belief you do. Things like "I really truly feel sorry for people like Kandahar" are NOT a rational explanation of what it is you're trying to preserve by being "pro-life"...they're just cheap appeals to emotion.

So far, you haven't been able to offer any explanation as to what's so special about life other than its complexity. You just keep droning on about life being "sacred," despite the fact that the word is meaningless since you aren't religious and you refuse to define it.

 

I feel a kinship with other beings, be they human or otherwise. Why do you care for your family? I care for most all beings as if they are family. I'm impressed by the numerous enthralling properties possessed by animals. It goes beyond how they enrich my life though, I just feel that humans do not have the right to discontinue any species. The very fact that a species exists is reason enough for it to continue existing. Who are we to determine otherwise?
My use of the word "sacred" is not a big deal, I meant it as in worthy of respect.

Do you have any pets? Would you club a baby seal to death? Are you saying you could witness such an act and feel nothing? You are one curious person indeed.

 

"NO ONE truly believes that all living things are entitled to the right to life. Using antibiotics, eating animals and/or plants, and swatting mosquitoes all end something's life, and very few people mourn the loss of any of those things killed (including most of you who claim they have the right to life)."

This is actually true. If you eat vegetables you don't think ALL life is SACRED. Life has to feed on life in SOME way. I can't think of ANY food that wasn't alive at some point. I get pissed when I hear people talking about animals as if they were more important that the wise trees who would live forever if we'd let them, and the plants that give you the fresh air we breathe. What makes you think those vegetables wanted to live any less that the animals you refuse to eat? (I'm not talking about ANYONE IN PARTICULAR, just ranting a little lol) Because they can't talk? Because they can't try and run away? I'm a person who could actually be called a tree hugger LOL I'm also pro choice but when faced with the choice I had my baby. I consider myself very respectful of all entities' right to live, but we have to be realistic about it..you're still killing plants if you won't eat animals...and who are we to say whether plants or animals or humans are more important?

 

I'm not talking about causing the extinction of a species, which I do think should be prohibited. I'm talking about an individual animal's right to life.

Yes.

The fact that you chose a "baby seal" for your question is quite revealing. Yes, while I'd probably feel something, that wouldn't be based on rationality. Determining the worth of an animal based on how cute and cuddly it is isn't a rational mindset. While I might irrationally feel for a baby seal, I doubt I'd have the same feelings for a bat.

While it's still too early to feel a *strong* bond with artificial intelligence, I'd definitely feel more of a kinship with a complex, non-biological entity (such as a supercomputer) than I would with a less complex, biological entity (such as an insect).

 

You don't tigers having this debate before they devour a gazelle.

I think all life is important, including bugs, plants, even microorganisims. Yet that doesn't mean I'm not going to smash a red ant that is biting me, or skip out on the chicken I am making for dinner tonight. I understand and respect what each life on this planet means, and I believe that we all have a right to life. But with that right to life comes the right to survive, and we all have that as well. Unfourtanatly these "rights" seem to overlap with others and eachothers. That's just how it goes I suppose. There is no changing it.

I believe in not being excessive, however. Would I go out with an automatic rifle, yell "it's coming right for us!!!" and slaughter everything I see (for all those of you who watch South Park)? Hell no. Will I defend poachers, or lack of environmental policies that cause harm to our ecosystem? Hell no. Will I drive my polluting car to work so I can afford to feed my family? You bet your ass I will.

 

i think what determines an entity's right to life, is it's ability to comprehend feelings and thoughts...

an animal feels. when you abuse an animal, it feels the abuse. it feels unloved and neglected. if you hit a carrot...nothing. it doesn't wimper or cry in pain. it doesn't even feel it. it's not even "alive" in that sense. it's alive, because it grows, lives, and dies. but it doesn't think, or feel. therefore, it's a suitable choice for food.

everything has to eat something. and something living, at that. for you to get nutrients from it, it has to first produce nutrients. so, choosing a living thing that doesn't feel the pain of being killed is a better choice, then something that DOES feel that pain, and can even be saddened and heart broken by the fact that people choose to abuse them and kill them for their own personal gain.

i also think that the situation would come into play, too. if a cow or cat or dog is suffering from sickness or a wound, or something, and it's just living in misery, then killing it would be a good thing. but, humanely. not beating it to death, or stabbing it, or cutting it's head off.

everything has a right to live, because everything is a child of the Earth, just like we humans are.

 

Having a central nervous system doesn't necessarily mean it comprehends feelings. While most animals (unlike plants) are concerned for their own survival and have escape/defense reflexes built into their central nervous systems, the vast majority can't "feel pain" in the sense that we understand it. If I were so inclined, I might be able to program a Sony Aibo to writhe in "pain" under certain conditions, such as a high temperature. But I doubt most of us would feel much sympathy for it. The verdict is still out on whether or not various types of birds and mammals can feel "pain," but my prediction is that for the vast majority of birds and mammals (as well as ALL cold-blooded animals and invertebrates), the answer is no.

 

do you believe that a cat or dog can feel pain, love, etc??? (i know they can)...

then why not a cow or whatever?

all you have to do is spend time with them to KNOW that they feel emotions just as we do.

 

i think it's absolutley ludacris to suggest that animals don't feel pain...

they have a brain and a central nervous system. how can they not?? just because they can't express that they feel pain, doesn't mean that they can't.

 

I do not know the answer to that question. To me, it's no different from the debate over whether an artificial entity can ever "think." While there are some objective criterion one can use to determine these kinds of things, the line between "feelings" and "survival reflexes" is a very fine one.

I'm not saying that dogs and cats definitely CAN'T feel pain and love (although these emotions are certainly not as complex as human emotions). I'm just remaining agnostic on that position, and don't believe it's possible to know (at least, not yet).

Same as above. I do not know whether a cow has any discernible "feelings."

How do you KNOW, since you are not them? What's the difference between the emotions of a dog and the emotions of an Aibo, aside from complexity?

 

It's funny how people humanize animals. Generally it's all the cute fuzzy animals. Like since the dog stays at your feet, or jumps to your lamp for petting, he must feel love...

Not necessarily true. I have a dog, but I highly doubt he feels any "love" for me. I interpet it as love because he is my dog I am attached to him, and I feel like he is a member of the family. I really know he is working on instinct, that there is likely no love there when he has made himself part of our pack. He is attached to me just like his wild relatives would be attached to members of their pack. Love has nothing to do with it.

I'm sure most animals (the ones you guys are generally talking about) feel emotions. They feel nervousness, anger, they exhibit caution. But these are emotions necessary for survival in those animals (I don't think "love" falls in that category). And these are just our interpretation of those emotions, we can't really imagine if they feel the same anxiety that we do when being chased by a Lion or something. They more likely are running on pure survival instinct, not emotion as we know it.

The only exception to this rule would be the higher intelligence animals. Scientists have seen animals like ephants, apes, even whales exhibit mourning behavior when a member dies. Animals that are capable of self-realization and self-reflection may have enough intelligence to have developed a range of emotions, but there are far more creatures in the animals world with brains no more capable than basic functions for survival. (Not that I think they have any less right to life)

 

i hate how people fuckin imply that because animals have a lower intelligence than us, than that means they are incapable of emotions. maybe they have emotions, but they're so advanced beyond our means, and we can't even understand it. maybe they have a totally different set of emotions all together.

i've fuckin seen animals express emotion. i've seen the sadness and pain in a dog's eyes, when it's been beaten. i've seen the joy in a dog when you play with it, and show it love and affection. dingos, native dogs of australia, are emotional creatures. they often find a partner and stay with that partner for life, much like humans do. and it's even been proven that they sometimes mourn themselves to death over the loss of their loved one. now, if that's not fuckin emotion, then what is?

my mum works on a pig farm, and she says anyone that thinks animals don't feel emotion, have just never taken the time to pay attention. she talks with the pigs, and the pigs talk back to her. she's told me, she can tell when they're talking to her, she can sense their emotions. she can tell when they're feeling sad, or upset, or happy, or just plain fine.

i think it's really fuckin pompous to think that we're the only animal capable of emotion, just because we're the smartest.