On the value of living beings
One of the great ideas of your time is the idea that all human beings have the same value, regardless of race, gender, origin, nationality or religion. Seen from my time, it's a very bold idea. Not everybody shares this idea, even in the western world; and even more share it in theory but not in practice - but it is generally accepted, part of your democracies' ideologies and fixed in many constitutions.
But what about other living beings? Do they have the same value as humans, the same right to live?
This concerns at least two controversies of your time: Veganism and abortion. But these controversies are highly emotional and in some cases influenced by religious and political opinions, so let's rather start by considering a hypothetical case:
Assume that in the year of grace 2020, astronauts discover strange pumpkin-sized mushrooms on Mars. Suppose these "Mars Mushrooms" are in some strange way capable of reasoning. Furthermore, let's assume that fried Mars Mushrooms are not only a delicious dish, but also capable of curing cancer.
It's not difficult to guess what would happen next: A lot of humans, probably the majority, would consider Mars Mushrooms inferior beings and happily exploit this newly discovered gourmet cancer cure, whereas others would claim that Mars Mushroom have the same right to live as humans and that killing them is murder.
Who is right?
The answer, of course, is that there is no answer. All depends whether you consider the Mars Mushrooms inferior beings or equal to humans. In other words, it depends on the value you attribute to different kinds of creatures. (In this article, "value" means moral value like in "all humans are equal", not emotional value like in "I like my own kids most".) There is no "objective" value of creatures. Some may try to argue for a high (or low) value by considering criteria like intelligence, conscience, the ability to feel pain, or even cuteness, but as there is no formula to compute value, it doesn't help much. In the old days, one important criterion was "does it have a soul?", but as the existence of a soul is not a scientific statement (it is not falsifiable), so this criterion has become less popular in your time.
So, if "value" isn't objective but subjective, where does it come from? Well, imho it's highly influenced by culture, but ultimately a personal choice. This choice forms a premise, a base for ethical decisions: If I consider Mars Mushrooms as equal (or almost equal) to humans, it would be murder to kill one to save a cancer-patient; If I consider them inferior, it would be murder not to do so and to let the patient die.
Now, in our Mars Mushroom example there will be probably two different kinds of "mushroom protectors": The militant protectors will apply their own standards to everybody else, accuse the mushroom-eaters of being killers and eventually try to push a law to protect the life of mushrooms. The tolerant protectors will apply their standards to themself, not eat mushrooms and maybe try to convince their friends in a non-offensive way, but they will respect the fact that other people have different opinions. The latter attitude appears more reasonable to me, but it is far from being easy: It comes down to seeing innocent creatures slaughtered, creatures you love, creatures you consider as valuable as humans, and to forbidding yourself to intervene. So, the decision of (a) according a high value to those beings and (b) to remain tolerant is not an easy one, and may appear cowardly and unethical to some.
Note that according a high or low value to a creature is a priori not an ethical decision for itself, as it forms the premise of ethical decisions. Whoever considers another person evil because this other person attributes a lower value to mushrooms misses the point. There is, however, one exception to this rule: Every culture, every time has its standards, its "minimum values" attributed to different kinds of creatures. Your time has established the standard that all humans have equal value, and that animals (at least some) have a value superior to zero. If you go below those values, if you consider women or Albanians or Huguenots lower beings and treat them accordingly, or if you torture dogs or horses just for fun, you are - according to your occidental standards - evil.
(As a side note, even within western culture, the common consensus about value of beings differs. In France, for example, you can order horse steaks in restaurants, in Germany you can't. In both countries, you can order a bunny meet, but try to order a bunny stew in the States... It's not that French people are "evil horse-eaters", it all depends on which value a culture attributes to different kinds of animals. (As a side-side note, pigs are more intelligent than horses.))
So, according to living beings values below the culture's "minimal values" is considered evil - hence the notion of racism, sexism or cruelty to animals. However, imho you can't consider someone evil because their definition of "value" doesn't match with your own personal definition. Many people seem to forget that. This brings us to the two controversies mentioned in the beginning: On one side we have the controversy of vegetarianism/veganism, which is (other reasons for vegetarianism put aside) mainly based on the question whether or not animals have equal value to humans. On the other side, we have the discussion about abortion, based about the question whether or not a human embryo has equal value to a human. In both cases, members of the "value equal to humans" faction consider killing said creatures murder, whereas their opponents can't see anything unethical in it.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that the two discussions are equivalent. Nor am I comparing the "value" of animals with the "value" of human embryos. An animal and a human embryo are quite different things. All I'm saying is that in the two discussions are based on the open question whether or not a certain living being is to be considered of equal value to a human.
In this post, I'm not taking position in either of the said controversies. But I appeal to you, whether you are pro or contra abortion, vegan or carnivore: Please realize that your postulates, the value you attribute to embryos or animals, differ from the ones of the guy you are arguing with. It doesn't help claiming they are a murderer when they are not according to their postulates, and it doesn't help either to minimize what has a high value in their opinion. Most of all, you should not forget that the core of the controversy is not about God, women's rights, the taste of meat, the Bible, tradition or the alimentation of Homo Erectus, but about the value you chose to give to certain living beings. If you keep that in mind, you may not come to an agreement, but at least you might "agree to disagree".
One of the great ideas of your time is the idea that all human beings have the same value, regardless of race, gender, origin, nationality or religion. Seen from my time, it's a very bold idea. Not everybody shares this idea, even in the western world; and even more share it in theory but not in practice - but it is generally accepted, part of your democracies' ideologies and fixed in many constitutions.
But what about other living beings? Do they have the same value as humans, the same right to live?
This concerns at least two controversies of your time: Veganism and abortion. But these controversies are highly emotional and in some cases influenced by religious and political opinions, so let's rather start by considering a hypothetical case:
Assume that in the year of grace 2020, astronauts discover strange pumpkin-sized mushrooms on Mars. Suppose these "Mars Mushrooms" are in some strange way capable of reasoning. Furthermore, let's assume that fried Mars Mushrooms are not only a delicious dish, but also capable of curing cancer.
It's not difficult to guess what would happen next: A lot of humans, probably the majority, would consider Mars Mushrooms inferior beings and happily exploit this newly discovered gourmet cancer cure, whereas others would claim that Mars Mushroom have the same right to live as humans and that killing them is murder.
Who is right?
The answer, of course, is that there is no answer. All depends whether you consider the Mars Mushrooms inferior beings or equal to humans. In other words, it depends on the value you attribute to different kinds of creatures. (In this article, "value" means moral value like in "all humans are equal", not emotional value like in "I like my own kids most".) There is no "objective" value of creatures. Some may try to argue for a high (or low) value by considering criteria like intelligence, conscience, the ability to feel pain, or even cuteness, but as there is no formula to compute value, it doesn't help much. In the old days, one important criterion was "does it have a soul?", but as the existence of a soul is not a scientific statement (it is not falsifiable), so this criterion has become less popular in your time.
So, if "value" isn't objective but subjective, where does it come from? Well, imho it's highly influenced by culture, but ultimately a personal choice. This choice forms a premise, a base for ethical decisions: If I consider Mars Mushrooms as equal (or almost equal) to humans, it would be murder to kill one to save a cancer-patient; If I consider them inferior, it would be murder not to do so and to let the patient die.
Now, in our Mars Mushroom example there will be probably two different kinds of "mushroom protectors": The militant protectors will apply their own standards to everybody else, accuse the mushroom-eaters of being killers and eventually try to push a law to protect the life of mushrooms. The tolerant protectors will apply their standards to themself, not eat mushrooms and maybe try to convince their friends in a non-offensive way, but they will respect the fact that other people have different opinions. The latter attitude appears more reasonable to me, but it is far from being easy: It comes down to seeing innocent creatures slaughtered, creatures you love, creatures you consider as valuable as humans, and to forbidding yourself to intervene. So, the decision of (a) according a high value to those beings and (b) to remain tolerant is not an easy one, and may appear cowardly and unethical to some.
Note that according a high or low value to a creature is a priori not an ethical decision for itself, as it forms the premise of ethical decisions. Whoever considers another person evil because this other person attributes a lower value to mushrooms misses the point. There is, however, one exception to this rule: Every culture, every time has its standards, its "minimum values" attributed to different kinds of creatures. Your time has established the standard that all humans have equal value, and that animals (at least some) have a value superior to zero. If you go below those values, if you consider women or Albanians or Huguenots lower beings and treat them accordingly, or if you torture dogs or horses just for fun, you are - according to your occidental standards - evil.
(As a side note, even within western culture, the common consensus about value of beings differs. In France, for example, you can order horse steaks in restaurants, in Germany you can't. In both countries, you can order a bunny meet, but try to order a bunny stew in the States... It's not that French people are "evil horse-eaters", it all depends on which value a culture attributes to different kinds of animals. (As a side-side note, pigs are more intelligent than horses.))
So, according to living beings values below the culture's "minimal values" is considered evil - hence the notion of racism, sexism or cruelty to animals. However, imho you can't consider someone evil because their definition of "value" doesn't match with your own personal definition. Many people seem to forget that. This brings us to the two controversies mentioned in the beginning: On one side we have the controversy of vegetarianism/veganism, which is (other reasons for vegetarianism put aside) mainly based on the question whether or not animals have equal value to humans. On the other side, we have the discussion about abortion, based about the question whether or not a human embryo has equal value to a human. In both cases, members of the "value equal to humans" faction consider killing said creatures murder, whereas their opponents can't see anything unethical in it.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that the two discussions are equivalent. Nor am I comparing the "value" of animals with the "value" of human embryos. An animal and a human embryo are quite different things. All I'm saying is that in the two discussions are based on the open question whether or not a certain living being is to be considered of equal value to a human.
In this post, I'm not taking position in either of the said controversies. But I appeal to you, whether you are pro or contra abortion, vegan or carnivore: Please realize that your postulates, the value you attribute to embryos or animals, differ from the ones of the guy you are arguing with. It doesn't help claiming they are a murderer when they are not according to their postulates, and it doesn't help either to minimize what has a high value in their opinion. Most of all, you should not forget that the core of the controversy is not about God, women's rights, the taste of meat, the Bible, tradition or the alimentation of Homo Erectus, but about the value you chose to give to certain living beings. If you keep that in mind, you may not come to an agreement, but at least you might "agree to disagree".
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
semiretiredpunk:
In regards to one hypothetical situation in this posting, I believe a good solution would be to attempt contact with the Martian mushrooms, to see if we might negotiate the willing donation of mushrooms that died of natural causes for research. Humans do this all the time. Completely irrelevant to the point, I know.
spleen:
<3