Hello everybody, this is The Jungle blog.
So I was on YouTube one day, and there are these surveys YouTube Channels put out that have become very common. There was one that was asking, “Does Human Life outweigh Animal Life.” I had an issue with the phrasing of the question. Because I was tired, my brain had confused the terms, less-intelligent life, and Animal life, and I was thinking of them interchangeably. Once I realized the mistake, I answered ‘No,’ to the question. Someone’s life is not less valuable just because they’re not part of our species.
But what about the other question I’ve just raised? Does more-intelligent life outweigh less intelligent life? This subject is complicated. If you are working to help animals, this question isn’t just some abstract thought exercise. There are real life, practical situations where you will need this information. But first, let me say that the capacity for suffering in two creatures of different intelligence must be considered equally. Two creatures may have different needs, but those needs ought to be given equal consideration. To consider the suffering of a human, but not an animal is nothing more than unjustifiable prejudice.
So why is it wrong to kill? I believe every conscious being wants to continue having experiences after the present moment. Other species have evolved to hear and see differently, and even experience time at different speeds. Some creatures even have senses that we don’t, such as echolocation, or thermal detection. Others don’t have eyes, they have light sensitive nerves. It is likely that animals experience physical sensations much more intensely than humans. Anyways, once a conscious being exists – they cannot imagine themselves not existing, and if the thought of such a thing occurred to them, it would bring dread. They want to keep experiencing things, and when you kill them, you cut off that capacity forever.
Keep in mind, there is not one type of intelligence, similar to how there is not one type of muscle. Psychologists have been arguing about what defines intelligence for a century, but basically, you can’t just boil it down to a single number and objectively compare on a scale. But for our purposes, what is important is how much loss a creature would experience if you killed them. That is why comparing a scientist to a non scientist wouldn’t be useful. Neither would it be useful to compare a five year old; who has realized they are going to die one day, and acquired some language and ability to plan for the future – in essence; basic abstract thinking skills, to a forty year old computer programmer.
Animal Rights Activists like Peter Singer have stated that animals live in a perpetual present. I think this is flatly untrue. Certainly humans are much more likely to have anxiety about the future. Animals are more likely to live in the moment, but never just in the EXACT present, or this one EXACT second. I think most forms of intelligent life can live a little bit in the deeper future or past. Obviously, we don’t know for sure and we have to be careful projecting too many human traits onto other species. Other animals have experiences that are alien and unknowable to us. However, I want to point out that the majority of humans are not great long term planners either – even if we think we have strategies and goals. Many of us have a tendency to only be able to see a few feet in front of our faces. Also, there are examples of things that completely contradict our ideas about other animals. Wolves can bury meat in the ground and dig it up as long as two years later. Lab tests on goldfish have shown that they can remember things for up to three years.
Less intelligent life shouldn’t automatically, or inherently be considered less valuable. We shouldn’t kill less intelligent creatures for NO reason, or for reasons that aren’t justified, like turning them into hamburgers. We also have to think on a case by case basis, weighing it against other aspects of that creature’s environment and mental life. There may be cases where you should actually choose to save a less intelligent creature over a more intelligent one. Something we should also keep in mind is that a less intelligent creature is more likely to be defenseless, and in this respect, we ought to prioritize them.
This question is highly subjective… Who’s to say that the life of a less intelligent creature is less worthy of being lived than the life of one who’s more intelligent? Each has its own pleasures, and an intelligent creature can experience hardships and horrors that a less intelligent creature will never experience. But if you’re in a bad situation with few options, you have to make a decision one way or the other. Just because a situation is subjective, that doesn’t mean that you should just do nothing. That is a copout. If you are gifted with more intelligence, that comes with certain responsibilities, and having to make difficult decisions.
I want to get out of the way, that this line of thinking isn’t an attempt to justify some prejudiced attitude towards animals, or some desperate desire to value the life of a human over some other type of creature like a squirrel. Emotionally I actually lean in the opposite direction, and it was difficult for me to consider these points at the time when I did. Neither is this an attempt to address those creatures for whom it’s psychologically impossible to give as much consideration as we ought to. That is not a matter of morality, but a matter of the world being a messed up place. The things I’m talking about actually have some very important real life applications.
But before we get to that, let me point out that we make the mistake of lumping very different creatures into the same category. For example, a shrimp, a tapeworm, or a fetus is on a very different level from a fish, which is on a very different level from a pig, dog, cow, chicken, squirrel, or rat.
I think it’s likely that the cutoff point for what qualifies as conscious life is something in between a shrimp and an oyster – and this might be as good a place to draw the line as any.
Compared to other groups, animals as a whole are more likely to be treated with disregard. They’re less likely to be afforded certain privileges. A large number can be found in deplorable, painful, filthy conditions. This is a society that forcibly breeds them, experiments on them, and turns them into hamburgers. Unfortunately, when we help animals, there are times when we have to make certain decisions for them because we are aware of things that they’re unable to be. We have to be careful taking that logic too far. By giving up our status of ‘Masters’ over the other animals, we shouldn’t later attempt to play God. The eventual goal is to leave other animals alone. But if we are rescuing animals to give them better lives, and there’s an animal in severe pain for whom there is nothing that can be done, we cannot be unwilling to put them out of their misery. Other groups, like family pets might have certain privileges secured for them that their less fortunate counterparts have not.
Here’s another situation. Suppose a person has contracted a parasitical animal inside their body. Whether it was their fault is irrelevant. Should we refuse to give the person medicine that would kill the parasite, or flush them out? Do we have an obligation to preserve the life of the parasite inside that person’s body? The ability to control your own body is an inherent right that all creatures should fight for. In one situation, a creature loses their life, and then feels nothing. In the other, the host experiences immense suffering. There is a third situation where both creatures end up dying anyways, because the parasite wasn’t extracted on time. The intelligence of a creature, or more accurately, what sort of life experience they have, should also be factored into a decision like this.
If you have principles about more intelligent or less intelligent life that you are willing to apply to animals, but you are unwilling to apply these to humans – then this is nothing more than pure unadulterated prejudice. If you are willing to let something be done to a dog or a pig, but unwilling to have that thing be done to a two year old human; then on what basis do you do so? Just because they are a different species than you? A dog is most similar in intelligence to a two year old human, and knows up to two hundred words. While it’s impossible to objectively compare, generally, pigs are considered much smarter than dogs. Before you get all angry and say, “How dare you,” remember that I’m not advocating for killing any of these creatures. I’m trying to give extra value to the lives of animals, not devalue the lives of humans. This anger comes from pure denial and rationalization and ought to be actively dismissed as such. My line of thought here is no different than realizing that the Earth isn’t the center of The Universe, or that the Sun doesn’t spin around the Earth. A person might say, “Well, I’m not a Utilitarian,” or “My morality isn’t required to be so rational or logical.” This so-called ‘logic’ I get accused of using is just meant to point out that there’s a problem to those who are trained to not see it. What respectable school of thought on morality allows for inflicting needless death and suffering on others; or harboring pure unadulterated prejudice towards them just because they’re different from you?
Anyways, it’s just a thought, have a good day everyone.