Most Explicit Animal Axiom Question Yet

[David Sklansky]

What I am really driving at with these questions is whether you think random human beings are close to infinitely more important than any random animal (not a pet). And how much that would change if the human was "worse" than random. Here's some questions along those lines that are quite specific:

1. Someone is choosing between letting one random human die painlessly or letting x random sentient animals (choose whichever is your favorite) die painfully. I have no idea how this situation has arisen so don't worry about it. Is there some number for x that would make you wish he chose the human? If so, what is it?

2. The human is not random but is instead a very bad person. How bad would he have to be for your x to be below 100? How about 1 (in other words one animal is more worth saving)?

3. Same question except while one alternative is to let x animals die painfully, the other alternative is one random human becoming blind in one eye. What's x now? And for x to equal one, how bad a person does he have to be?

PS If the human or animals are saved, assume their life is now normal.

[MasterLJ]

1. x would have to be very very large. Obviously I would trade 1 human life for the life of all animals on Earth, but only to preserve humanity.

2. I don't really have a scale for "badness," but generally speaking my x is less than 100 for most bad people. My x = 0 for anyone who seriously damages children.

3. x = several thousand. For x = 1, the person has to be below common societal standards for being "good".

[goofball]

1. As many of that species as could be lost without guranteed extinction.

[chezlaw]

The options seem to miss the important issue which is why the suffering is going on in the first place.

If the human is causing the suffering purely because they enjoy the suffering then I am happy to harm the human a large amount to stop them. If the suffering is accidental or incidental then I wouldn't harm the human to stop it (except in exceptional circumstances)

The badness of the human is otherwise irrelevent.

chez

[Vermin]

1. 1. Stupid humans are way less worth than stupid animals.

2. 0. Serves him right.

3. 1. He could be Jesus [censored] Christ and I would still have him loose an eye before painfully killing any animals.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
What I am really driving at with these questions is whether you think random human beings are close to infinitely more important than any random animal (not a pet).

[/ QUOTE ]

In a vacuum, I don't believe a human's life is more important than an animal's. No wonder I've found all these animal axiom questions rather silly.

[Tar.Aldarion]

A human is just an animal. A human and another animals life are equal to me.

1. x=2
2. x=2
3. x=1

[ALawPoker]

Couldn't x equal zero too (particularly in questions 2 and 3)? That is, couldn't a person be bad enough that you'd just prefer he die, even if no animals would be harmed if he didn't.

I don't value humans much higher than my favorite animal, so my x's will be fairly low. It won't be 1 though, only cause the emotional harm death causes to other humans is something I'm sympathetic towards. So whether or not the person had a lot of close friends and family means something to me. But I understand your question deals with a "random" human.

Ultimately, the death of people (and other animals) I don't know really doesn't bother me much. If none of my fellow human beings were aware of (and thus not able to judge me for) my decision, my x would probably be 3ish for question 1, and might err closer to 2 or less for question 2 (depending how much that person actually bothers me, if at all).

Maybe I'd end up caring more if I was in the hot seat, but I don't think I naturally have much empathy for "random human". I need some sort of personal relationship, even if that relationship is walking by him on the street or waiting in line behind him at the store. If he's random, he fries.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
A human is just an animal. A human and another animals life are equal to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are they really exactly equal though? I agree that humans are just another animal, and not objectively better in any way. But you can still have personal preferences. Clearly you'd stomp on an ant before you'd kick a puppy.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly you'd stomp on an ant before you'd kick a puppy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just dumb. I wouldn't do either intentionally thought I have done both on accident.