Are humans the most valuable organisms on the planet?

For many of us, we feel as though all humans are created equally but often at times people, in my opinion, have a double standard for the philosophy that it does not apply to anything outside the human race. I take a much broader stance on the philosophy, that humans are not necessarily anything more divine or valuable than any other organism.

I came across this argument while debating with a pro-life advocate, just for the sake of doing so, and my question was, if you're pro-life, why do you feel it's okay to kill animals? And the response was that humans are regarded differently, they are inherently more valuable. This isn't an argument on pro-life, so lets not make it one. Back to the point...

What's your position? What makes humans more valuable just because we have thumbs and better critical thinking skills? Humans are capable of showing the same and sometimes even more emotion for a pet that has passed away. So at least we can't say that we have a striking affinity for our own race more than any other species, that's simply not true. So without the emotional tid bit out of the way, what's so compelling about us that makes us "valuable." We eat, excrete, breathe, have a way of communicating like any other organism. You could argue we're at the top of the food chain and that alone makes us valuable, well I'll tell you what, the dinosaurs were at the top too and they mysteriously fell off the chain, where was natural selection to recognize their value or superiority?

'The red sun of Desire and Decision, the two things one requires to make a live world, rose higher and higher...whiles upon a succession of balconies, a succession of libertines, sparkling glass in hand, toasted the bliss of Past and future nights'

'To see what the eye has never seen, hear what the ear has never heard!'---Tertullian the Antinomian

Genesis is a fine enough confutation of the really ludicrous proposition which holds that Man and Beast are one and the same, but only if it is read as an Allegory of Sense-Perception rather than an Allegory of Transgression.

One has to learn to appreciate the Fruit of Knowledge not as an Ethical Artifact (alongside Augustine and Aquinas, just to keep with the A's), but as a Sensuous one. The subtil serpent (which is not Satan, but Eve's own Daemon) enjoins Eve to focus on the texture, color, and the fragrance of the Fruit of Perception, to consummate the Will to Godhead then and there: to be Overcome by (now synesthetically) the Fumes of that Fruit. Man does not outdo Beast because He thinks; he outdoes Beast because he Feels.

Consciousness of Time, consciousness of Image, consciousness of the 'Screen which is truth.' Human beings are both their own Spectators and their own Mirrors (the consciousness of one's own reflection, of one's 'his own,' is Lacan's primary distinction between human infants and those of apes).

An interesting question. I believe the reason we value human life over other life on earth is simply because we are humans. It is instinctual for us to survive and procreate, therefore naturally we value human life above everything else. It is ingrained in our DNA to do anything to survive individually, and that seems to apply race-wide as well.

So the next question would be, why not hold animal life as sacred also? I would argue that we are moving in that direction. One hundred years ago organizations such as PETA did not exist and animal testing was a non-issue. We are becoming progressively more aware of animal rights.

I do not believe, however, that humans will ever hold animal life in the same regard that they hold their own life. Our ability to reason and uphold morality sets us apart from every other creature on the planet. If you place a starving dog and a well-fed dog next to each other and offer them a steak, the well-fed dog is not going to pass up the steak so that the starving dog can survive. Most humans would sacrafice in the same situation. We are on an entire different level intellectually and valuing our lives more makes sense to us.

Anyway, I would say in a nutshell that the reason human life is more valuable than animal life is the capacity to reason, something entirely unique to our race as far as we know.

Inside my tiny mind, it seems that humans are one of the least valuable organisms on the planet. With the exception of domesticated plants and animals and bread-eating ducks, the world around us does not depend on us for survival.

On that note, I guess our most notable value (if you can call it that) is out ability to destroy the earth like no other animal. Ground pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, deforestation, global warming, hunting to extinction, etc. Yeah...I would say we're pretty good at destroying the environment. I have yet to see any other species do as much destruction as we already have.

All of those harms we have done to the planet were necessary to our evolution as a species, in my opinion. We were completely unaware when the majority of the damage was done (we were killing the planet at a much faster rate in the 50's than we are now) and will take steps to temper that destruction.

The earth will be important to humans for another 100-200 years (arbitrary guess) until we become able to leave it. Humankind is bigger than this one planet, it is just our current home. We should take care of it just as one would take care of an apartment they are staying in, but our potential is much greater than this one rock.

No matter what happens our stay on this planet is limited. Eventually it will hurl into the sun and long before that it will become unbearable to live on, we will need to have a mass exodus at some point.

I guess what I am saying is that in my humble opinion humans are not only the most valuable organisms on the planet....they are far more valuable than the planet itself. Is this arrogant? Probably. I don't see any other animals landing on the moon (unless we blast them there :) )

How valuable are humans to the planet is related directly to the question of what do humans add to the planet when compared to the rest of the organisms. When it comes down it to i feel that humans just don't add much and in fact take so much away. We have devastated the living places of countless other living beings, and other effects such has the emissions of toxic chemicals have had a negative effect on the planet. I think that like was said earlier we value humans due to the fact that we are human, however this doesn't make us intrinsically valuable. I'm not sure what organism is more valuable then humans, but I'm going to go ahead and think that there is something out there that adds something to the planet, which is something I feel that humans don't do. Regardless of how valuable we feel we are, or how much "better" we feel i believe that we are not more valuable to the planet then other organisms are.

You are answering a different question that was originally asked, I think. I would tend to agree that humans are not valuable TO the planet, as we use its resources and (unfortunately) pretty much destroy it. However, my answer to the original question (are we the most valuable ON the planet) would be an emphatic yes. The human brain is the most complex and powerful thing we know of (so far)...human life is by far (in my opinion) the single most important thing and must be valued above all else.

Our planet is just a rock with an atmosphere...we can prove that its existance has a limit. It really cannot be proven that the human race has a limit.

In response to the Original Post:

I read this response again more carefully and came across something that struck me. You said that humans do not show more of an affinity towards members of their own species than towards dogs/cats or other household pets. I don't think this could be further from the truth. You use the example of a beloved pet dying and the sadness derived from it but don't really give it a fair comparison under similar circumstances. What about when a mother loses a child? Uou don't believe the tragedy there outweighs the feeling the same woman would have if her pet dog died? What if kennel with 3000 cats exploded, you think that would get the same coverage as September 11th did or inspire the same emotion?

The emotional investment humans place in members of their own species outweighs what they place in pets and it isn't even close. I love my dog, she is a great companion and I will be very, very sad when she passes away. But the pain from that wouldn't even be comparable to one of my parents, brother, girlfriend, friend losing their life. I don't believe I am in the minority here, either.

You missed the point completely.

You derive such emotional attachment with your mother, girlfriend, who ever because of your personal experiences with them not simply because they are human. It's obvious that your personal experience is obviously enhanced because you're both human, there are advantages to that.

Let's work with what you've stated thus far:
"I love my dog, she is a great companion and I will be very, very sad when she passes away."

Let me ask you something, every time someone dies, are you "very, very sad"? Probably not, otherwise you'd be one of hell of a depressed individual. See how it's so easy to compare something random to something you care about and win an argument? That's precisely what you did before.

In this argument, we are not talking about people who you've had an experience with and how they outweigh a random animal, we're talking about how you can derive the same value in an animal just as a human. The emotional investment in both can equate to the same value in your eyes.

September 11th was an extremist attack on a certain kind of people, 3000 cats dying after a kennel explosion is quite different. And yes it does get coverage, ever heard of the endangered species list? Wonder why Australia's citizens are protesting over Japan killing Whales? It's getting more coverage considering there's thousands of organizations and protests occurring every day.

I attempted to squelch an argument of emotional value by providing my point that we can derive similar emotional value from an animal just as a human. It depends on everyone's experience.

The prospect and potential of value is the same in my eyes, humans aren't inherently more valuable. I think it's harsh and egotistical to think so.

The points you make are valid but the one thing I think you are still overlooking is the different level of emotion involved. Sure, there are endangered species and people are concerned about their welfare, etc. That gets coverage, but doesn't inspire the kind of widespread emotion that an event like September 11th does. I did not know a single person who died on September 11th, 2001, not one, yet it still is one of the most devastating days I can remember from my childhood. I do not believe I am alone in holding this opinion. If 300 0 golden retrievers were targeted and killed in a terrorist bombing it would not hold the same power. This is why when you say:

"Let me ask you something, every time someone dies, are you "very, very sad"? Probably not, otherwise you'd be one of hell of a depressed individual. See how it's so easy to compare something random to something you care about and win an argument? That's precisely what you did before."

Completely invalid. I do not know when everyone dies, there are too many people. I didn't know anyone involved in Sept. 11, however, and I was still very very sad about it. It isn't random, it is a good comparison. If someone told me that either my dog died or a random (healthy, not dying anyway) person somewhere in the world, I would have to choose my dog. Human life is MORE valuable than animal life.

Your point about it being personal experience that gives not just me but everyone a greater attachment to people than humans, is right. But look at the word you used, PERSONal. It is IMPOSSIBLE to connect on the same level with an animal that one can connect with a human. Humans are inherently more able to interact and create relationships with one another.

The reasons why humans are more valuable than every other species on the planet and should be treated that way are twofold: 1. We can reason. Humans are intelligent creatures who can use logic and think about consequences of actions. We have the ability to grow far beyond this one planet and colonize space, rendering the "most valuable organisms on the planet" question moot. 2. We can empathize. Humans can feel other humans, and animals, pain. They can feel sympathy and put themselves in another person's shoes. This is what gives humans desire to help the needy and protect endangered species. These two abilities are the reason why PERSONal experience can tie humans together much closer than animals.

The very idea that we are talking about whether animals should be given equal treatment as humans is a combination of these two traits. Hypothetically, if dinosaurs ruled the earth at the time of early human existence, do you think they would be on a site like outquib.com discussing whether or not those puny little mammals should be given equal treatment? Dinosaurs cannot reason nor empathize, neither can any other creature on the planet. Humans are the sole proprietors of this ability.

Should we take care of animals? Yes. Are we on the same level as them? No way. We will share this earth with them for another few hundred years at most and then we'll, for the most part, be gone. Our potential as a species is greater than this planet can contain. They can have the earth back...we'll leave...it'll probably benefit them anyway.