That's a nonstarter for me and makes me want to avoid this film.
Speciesism is a perfectly reasonable position. Assigning the exact same values and rights to cockroaches/jellyfish/ants as we do to humans is ludicrous. Any number of moral thought experiments should immediately demonstrate how absurd that would be (e.g. would you refuse to sacrifice 2 ants to save 1 human?).
Speciesism is a perfectly reasonable position. Assigning the exact same values and rights to cockroaches/jellyfish/ants as we do to humans is ludicrous. Any number of moral thought experiments should immediately demonstrate how absurd that would be (e.g. would you refuse to sacrifice 2 ants to save 1 human?).
You've misunderstood anti-speciesism. Anti-speciesism means that "moral worth" is not determined at all by species. It doesn't mean that all individuals have the same "moral worth". In other words, if we find a new species which is pretty much identical to humans in terms of age, intelligence etc., they should be roughly equal in moral worth to humans even if they're from a different species.
Another key point in non-speciesism is the argument that "it's just an animal". Species shouldn't be used in ethical arguments. Anti-speciesism doesn't mean that intelligence, ability to feel pain, average lifespan and so on have no place in moral discussions. Of course they do. I would sacrifice two ants to save one human if that increase utility (because I happen to be anti-speciesist person who belives in something close to utiliarianism).
Another thought experiment would be comparing a severely mentally disabled child and a chimpanzee of equal intelligence and predicted lifespan. I think it would be as evil to kill and eat the chimpanzee as it would be to kill and eat the child.
Any number of moral thought experiments should immediately demonstrate how absurd that would be (e.g. would you refuse to sacrifice 2 ants to save 1 human?).
Ahh, but don't stop there. Make such though experiments with humans (Would you sacrifice one 80 year old to save two 40 year olds? Would you sacrifice 3 illiterate children to save one wunderkind? Is a person you know worth 1.3 or rather 2.7 people you don't know?) quickly shows that those are equally absurd, so the absurdity in one case proves nothing.
There is nothing absurd about any of those scenarios. Those are perfectly valid questions, and to answer them might be difficult - that's why it's not at all obvious that 40 year olds are more morally "important" than 80 year olds (for me they obviously aren't). However, to answer the original question is very easy: Human > Rat. Defending the opposite position is absurd, and although some people might feel Human=Rat - it's a fallacy to compare this to "Black human = White human", or to "Jew=Non-Jew".
Just because you've chosen silly numbers doesn't mean those are absurd. Moral thought experiments are useful for understanding what value people tend to place on human life.
See, even with your trolling questions, most people would have a queasy feeling in their stomach when considering sacrificing a human being.
But when I ask you to compare the value of ant life to human life, there's no comparison. You wouldn't hesitate. They aren't equal at all.
Comments
That's a nonstarter for me and makes me want to avoid this film.
Speciesism is a perfectly reasonable position. Assigning the exact same values and rights to cockroaches/jellyfish/ants as we do to humans is ludicrous. Any number of moral thought experiments should immediately demonstrate how absurd that would be (e.g. would you refuse to sacrifice 2 ants to save 1 human?).
You've misunderstood anti-speciesism. Anti-speciesism means that "moral worth" is not determined at all by species. It doesn't mean that all individuals have the same "moral worth". In other words, if we find a new species which is pretty much identical to humans in terms of age, intelligence etc., they should be roughly equal in moral worth to humans even if they're from a different species.
Another key point in non-speciesism is the argument that "it's just an animal". Species shouldn't be used in ethical arguments. Anti-speciesism doesn't mean that intelligence, ability to feel pain, average lifespan and so on have no place in moral discussions. Of course they do. I would sacrifice two ants to save one human if that increase utility (because I happen to be anti-speciesist person who belives in something close to utiliarianism).
Another thought experiment would be comparing a severely mentally disabled child and a chimpanzee of equal intelligence and predicted lifespan. I think it would be as evil to kill and eat the chimpanzee as it would be to kill and eat the child.
Ahh, but don't stop there. Make such though experiments with humans (Would you sacrifice one 80 year old to save two 40 year olds? Would you sacrifice 3 illiterate children to save one wunderkind? Is a person you know worth 1.3 or rather 2.7 people you don't know?) quickly shows that those are equally absurd, so the absurdity in one case proves nothing.
There is nothing absurd about any of those scenarios. Those are perfectly valid questions, and to answer them might be difficult - that's why it's not at all obvious that 40 year olds are more morally "important" than 80 year olds (for me they obviously aren't). However, to answer the original question is very easy: Human > Rat. Defending the opposite position is absurd, and although some people might feel Human=Rat - it's a fallacy to compare this to "Black human = White human", or to "Jew=Non-Jew".
No, I don't think so.
Just because you've chosen silly numbers doesn't mean those are absurd. Moral thought experiments are useful for understanding what value people tend to place on human life.
See, even with your trolling questions, most people would have a queasy feeling in their stomach when considering sacrificing a human being.
But when I ask you to compare the value of ant life to human life, there's no comparison. You wouldn't hesitate. They aren't equal at all.