Is there a consistent way to rank the value of living organisms?

[wuushew]

I have been reading the various Japanese whaling posts on this board and while I find myself in unquestionable opposition to the killing of these animals, I am at a loss to explain the strength of this feeling.

Since I am a meat eater, I have been responsible for the deaths of many domesticated cows and pigs in my life. I don't find myself contemplating the deaths of these animals in the same way as the killing of complex wild animals.

The biochemical similarity between all organisms is remarkably close, yet I don't know of many people who regard the felling of an oak as half the murder of a human.
Is it possible that "fondness" for animals is based on an appreciation of the relative size of the brain and the scarcity of said organism in its environment? To what degree are these feelings innate in all humans and to what extent are such feelings a result of one's culture? The Chinese eat dogs, yet we do not. We eat cow, but in India they eat much less of everything.

We criticize the Japanese, but at the same time the United States has its share of ranchers, farmers and oil men who are willing to kill animals like wolves, bears and deer for economic gain. Regrettably all human activity destroys the natural environment and the creatures which inhabit it from lowly slime-molds through more complex organisms like spotted owls and bald eagles. I guess whaling could be argued to be one of the most damaging human activities for very little economic gain and therefore should be held to a high standard of criticism.





Help me out of my nihilistic funk.

[Xipe Totec]

1. The issue is not consumption, but extinction n/t

[wuushew]

3. I understand that

but people don't display the same level of activism between dissimilar species that are in equal danger of human caused extinction.

[Xipe Totec]

10. Such as?

I can't agree or disagree with that statement without having some concrete example.

What other species is in equal danger of human caused extinction that doesn't elicit the same level of activism?

[wuushew]

13. What about the Bulega Sturgeon?

:shrug:

[Xipe Totec]

16. Caviar crackdown will combat the smugglers of 'black gold'

A caviar “guarantee” is being introduced to try to combat the multimillion-pound illegal trade in endangered sturgeon.

Much of the trade in wild caviar was banned almost a year ago, and consumers were encouraged to buy the farmed product instead, but global demand has created a black market worth an estimated £500 million.

Under the new scheme, all caviar tins will have to identify their exact source. Any imports without an authenticated label of origin will be seized by police or Customs officials.

The Government must meet new Europe-wide wildlife legislation aiming to stamp out illicit sales of caviar. Sturgeon roe can fetch up to £20,000 a kilogram, and the lucrative illegal trade could wipe the fish out.


From March 1 (2007), every import will carry labels giving the species code, source of caviar, country code, year of harvest, processing plant registration number and lot identification number.

Any import that does not comply will be deemed illegal, even if moving within the European free trade area. And batches repackaged at a plant within the EU must be relabelled to include a registration number. Taking wild caviar from the Caspian Sea is now illegal. Some caviar is farmed in the US and on the Danube, but 90 per cent of all wild and farmed caviar comes from the Caspian, with 70 per cent from Iran and Russia. The system was well regulated in the Soviet era, but the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s caused it to unravel.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2521094,00.html

[TooBigaTent]

2. For me, it comes down to a personal decision. If I had my choice of rescuing

my cat or Bush from a burning house, no contest.

My cat or an unknown human - maybe a little tougher but still I would choose my cat.

But then, I rate on a subjective scale.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. How about the choice between

a severely disabled child and a non-disabled child. they're both drowning, and you can only save one.

Ethics tests are no fun if the answer is easy.

:-)

[TooBigaTent]

11. You are right about that. If they were both strangers to me, whichever one I

thought could be saved more easily/certainly would be my choice.

And is there a "right" answer to an ethical, hypothetical question?

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Absolutely equal chance of saving either

Whomever you choose will certainly be saved, while whomever you do not choose will certainly drown.

You don't get off that easy! :-)

No, there is no "right" answer.

[El Pinko]

4. For me, the intelligence of the whale is not a major factor for me.

The fact that they are endangered is. There are other sea creatures the Japanese can eat besides whale. From what I've read, they can barely sell what they catch of whale meat at a discount because it's no longer a popular food there. So why are they so insistent on doing this kill every year? I don't get it.

The discussion of which animals are worth more than others is a major ethical can of worms I don't really want to get into, especially being a meat-eater myself...

[MADem]

6. It's an argument for meat cloning, IMO!

It may be Frankenfood, but at least it ain't Free Willy!

[MADem]

5. Well, certainly there are consistent ways, but are they also VALID, is the question...

You could do a whole philosophy course on that single question!

[Angela Shelley]

7. Hi wuushew, thanks for the refreshingly honest thread.

I think it´s a double standard. We like to point the finger at someone else to remind ourselves that we are not the only monsters on this planet.

As long as someone else is doing something which we think is "worse", then we´re still OK.

[thereismore]

9. yes. The bushes rank highest. nt

[InvisibleTouch]

12. First, let me say it's all subjective.

There is no absolute ranking of value, regardless of the fact that humans like to think of themselves as the utter pinnacle of evolution (or "creation," for those that prefer the mythological aspect) - but it's not true in any objective universal sense. Humans are just one species among the multitude, and each individual values their life every bit as much as any other, regardless of species. In that sense, the taking of any life is a momentous thing.

However, we all have to eat to survive - that's part of nature's way. There's no shame in killing to eat, whether for a human or any other species; there's shame in killing senselessly, in causing unneccessary suffering. There's shame in not exercising the alternatives, if they exist. I'm okay with raising animals for food, for instance, but not okay with raising them in cruel conditions. I'm okay with leather products, because they are a byproduct of the food chain (provided, again, the animals were raised and killed humanely). I'm not okay with wearing fur, because it's not a survival imperative for anyone these days (with some very few exceptions) to clothe themselves in fur. I'm definitely not okay with the wiping out of wild species for profit, or with whaling when the populations are so endangered and there are plenty of other food sources available.

As to whether we feel more comfortable eating those animals whom we don't relate to as closely, well, this is true, and again that's where subjectivity comes in. Is a whale any more sentient than a cow or a dog? I doubt it. That's where we have to make our own individual choices. I wouldn't eat a dog, because I raise dogs, and I wouldn't eat reptiles, because I love reptiles - but that's me. I've raised animals for food, with the understanding from the beginning that I was raising them for food - and thus didn't let myself get attached to them as individuals - but I always made sure they were well cared-for and happy during their lives.

I guess my criteria as to whether it's "okay" to use a given species for food, if I were to set up any kind of "guideline," would be first of all whether the species is endangered or fragile, and second of all whether they're raised and/or killed humanely - and of course, whether there's a need for that food source in a survival sense. (Shooting wolves from airplanes or clubbing baby seals for their coats is not a survival imperative, for instance! One might say, well, the hunters make their living that way, so it is about their survival - but there are plenty of alternative ways to make a living.)

It's possible to eat and be part of nature's cycle without being cruel or destructive. Other predators have been doing it for millions of years. It's only humans, the self-styled "pinnacle", who can't seem to figure it out.

[Angela Shelley]

17. If we lived in Siberia, we would know the value of a fur coat.

If we didn´t have a Walmart within driving distance, we would know the value of a hunter, and be thankful that he has chosen to make a living by feeding us.

[InvisibleTouch]

18. That, then, would be a survival imperative.

But a fur coat as a "fashion statement" is not. That's why the former is not a crime, IMO, and the latter is.

edit: typo

[flvegan]

15. I find value to be inherent, not given nor ranked.

Do the least reasonable harm. That's how I live.