The debate "Is a person's life worth more than that of a cockroach" was started by
October 29, 2019, 11:09 am.
71 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Allirix posted 6 arguments, diecinueve posted 7 arguments, CastLight posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
Audrey23 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
diecinueve, arkasamanta681, truthseeking, Allirix, MightyJackalope, CastLight, TheExistentialist, chelseat99, Agrumentman, StarianaMusicINFP, Andrew_Sagirius, YEET, Debatelegend, Mimi, Rayyan989, Grant65, Nemiroff, NoctaRavage, plank420, chelrasonjohn, mtbtheboss, jrardin12, Cisco and 48 visitors agree.
Audrey23 and 23 visitors disagree.
that is objectively the opposite of subjective.
also roaches spread disease. if its us or them, i pick us.
if a race superior and different from us kills us it would be wrong. So subjectively for us that someone kills another just for being different is wrong. So subjectively for us, killing cockroaches is wrong
objectively there is no objective answer. it depends on your perception, thus it is subjective.
What objective values are you using to measure the worth of a human and cockroach to say that they or of equal worth?
objectively the life of a person and that of a cockroach are equal, so the objective answer is that it is wrong
Yes. So there is no objective answer here. It's relative to the values of each subject. So I agree and disagree.
Human life has more values I rank highly, so to me they're worth more.
That hierarchy is different in each person. For a cockroach, its life is in the first place, and killing it just because in your hierarchy is too low, it would be very selfish
There's a method to elicit your value hierarchy by asking "why" to everything you say. Getting to fundamental values let's you define why you believe what you believe. Without them discussion is difficult.
An example for someone who believes all life is equal could be:
They may think it's sentience (feelings, perceptions, mind's eye, subjective experience, etc) that what makes life valuable. It's what separates objects from subjects and you either have it or you don't. Each form of sentience is equal because it's superior to say otherwise. You therefore have a duty to care for life that may struggle to defend itself. Idk
Or you may be a nihilist and these are your values:
The lives are worth the same because the lives are equally worthless.
well other, more superior, species get hungry too.
furthermore they may also see us as pests, possibly full of disease. or perhaps simply a predator. we are clearly superior to a tiger... a tiger can still cause alot of death and destruction to us.
there are many reasons to kill, and many questions considering interspecies morality.
as to my theory, it has nothing to fo with right or wrong. but what is. our brains cannot handle billions of individuals (and thats just humanity, forget all life). we compartmentalize, organize, and prioritize our reality. as much as even the best of us understands the flaws of stereotypes, one cannot think of people in a foreign nation one has never met as anything other then a nationality or ethnicity in the most general terms. and its much harder to care about "random Chinese farmer" then it does about a person you know as an individual. that care rises exponentially the more you identify with the person. family (usually) > friends > neighbors > strangers > foreign strangers (debateable) > any animal > unfamiliar animal.
I eat meat because I like it, just like I kill cockroaches in my room because they scare me. we take their lives for the benefit of ourselves. that's wrong, but it's hard to change it
rights are political permissions that vary depending on the government/culture.
if you mean morality, as in "is it right for them to kill us", that relies on objective morality even more complicated by species differences. does it apply to our systematic imprisonment and murder of cattle? what if the superior species considers us tasty and nutritious? does that change the equation?
And that is correct? imagine that there is a race superior and different from ours. Would that give him the right to kill us?
yes it is right. even amongst humans do you give the same value to the lives of your family as your friends? do you give the same value to your friends as your neighbors? etc.
it isnt exactly about whether it is us or not, but how close to us it is in relation. thus a chimpanzee and orangutans are being represented in court to get human rights, while rats and cockroaches are still being undefended in their slaughter.
Do you think it is right that we give less value to its life just because it is not us?
If you were cockroach, will you thinking human life is worth than cockroach? it's all about who you are and you choose to be in who's shoes
well it has to deal with perspective completely if you're someone who cares about every single thing on earth then yeah a cockroach would be the equivalent to a human on the other hand however for Christians God made humans in his image and a cockroach is not a human it is an animal and Christians say that every other animal is a soulest beast and really their lives do not matter as much as God's image that's what we say so from Christian's perspective a human life would not be equal with a cockroaches life. It depends completely on perspective
What is intrinsic value? Is it some sort of objective value that is outside the value we give ourselves? If so I'd love to hear more about it
I dont think anyone honestly believes that a human life and the life of a cockroach is equal. Whether they want to admit it or not everyone knows deep down that human lives have intrinsic value.
Because we value human life and not the life of a roach
Why is it wrong to kill a person and not a cockroach?
Depends what set of values you use to judge "worth". Otherwise it's nonsensical