Call for opinions on human life!

[Rule]

This thread is solely to see what your opinions are.  I am not going to argue with any of it here, and my only responses will be to clarify a point.  And I have no intention of starting another thread for argument or criticising you here.

The Question:
For those of you who think the same rules shouldn't apply to humans as to other animals, why not?  For example, why is it fine to kill another animal, but not a human? Why could you sleep at night doing one and not the other? What makes humans different?  If you have a religious reason, please post it, and I am also very interested in non-religious reasons as well.  Please try to explain what you mean clearly, and don't be overly brief.

For example, you might say that "humans have feelings and animals do not", and then explain why you think that.

Thanks, I appreciate it!

[rabbit]

I think it's just because they aren't eating us.  Humans are carnivores (or omnivores I think, technically).  Other animals are our prey.  Thus, we kill and eat them.  Sure, they can kill and eat us back, but they aren't, for the most part, so whatever.

[CrAz3D]

The way our thoughts have evolved to be superior to theirs'.  I believe it is fine to kill animals and not fine to kill people (some exceptions apply in both cases).

[AntiVirus]

The Question:
For those of you who think the same rules shouldn't apply to humans as to other animals, why not?  For example, why is it fine to kill another animal, but not a human? Why could you sleep at night doing one and not the other? What makes humans different?  If you have a religious reason, please post it, and I am also very interested in non-religious reasons as well.  Please try to explain what you mean clearly, and don't be overly brief.

Humans are very social.  We depend on each other for survival and food.  The majority of the human race believes that it is not okay to kill another human for the same reason why a lioness doesn't kill another lioness of the same pride and for the same reason why wolfs of the same pack don't kill their own members.  To kill each other would defy our very nature as social creatures and would be anti productive to the whole.  It could very well lead to our own death as and individual or as a species. 

I personally find killing an animal for no reason at all to be wrong as well and I don't approve of that type of behavior.  I think animals have the right to live just like us and to destroy a life for no particular reason, but self pleasure is horribly wrong.  We should kill an animal if we plan on eating the animal or using it as a way to survive. 

Humans are different because, unlike animals, we have the ability of complex reasoning.  We are able to create environments to help other animals on a global scale, something no other creature has been able to do.  We as humans are also very different from one another.  Most animals of the same species perform the same tasks as other animals of that species and uniqueness in the animal kingdom specific to each species is rather limited, whereas we humans are all very different.  We are the only creatures in the world that protect all forms of life as well as destroy them.  Which is where the uniqueness of us all comes in, some of us destroy while others protect.

[Super_X]

I don't really have a problem with killing things for food, be it people, or animals alike. I think that every thing depends on the situation. I would rather eat an animal than a person, because I can talk to people, and get along with them, and they're stringy and tough to eat, I'd immagine.

[Joe]

First of all, it's perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, to kill animals, since several (although by no means all) species of animal have exhibited this behavior towards humans, with lions, bears, and wolves coming to mind. Although this point doesn't necessarily cover us killing non-hostile animals (notably deer, especially in the Midwest US), those are covered by my second point.

As a believer in Christianity (a whole other debate in itself, I guess?), I believe that God created all animals for Adam, and Adam was given the privilege to control and subdue (ie, hunt or kill) all the animals to conform to his needs, be it food, living space, tools (bones, pelts), or recreation (hunting). That is, of course, a religious standpoint and I don't expect anyone to accept that in a debate, but whatever. :P

[Rule]

x86/64] link=topic=9396.msg119237#msg119237 date=1179382785]
First of all, it's perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, to kill animals, since several (although by no means all) species of animal have exhibited this behavior towards humans, with lions, bears, and wolves coming to

I definitely don't want this discussion to degenerate into an argument, because it's been pretty awesome so far.  But I must point out something almost factual.  The idea that wolves are aggressive or hostile towards humans or have been involved in many incidents where a human has been injured is a complete myth.  For some reason wolves actually intentionally avoid conflict with humans (unless they are blatantly provoked or their food or territory is obviously threatened).  This has puzzled biologists.  Most people fear wolves, but they are one of the most safe and friendly breeds of dogs, much more so than pitbulls, boxers, rottweilers, terriers, etc.  If you want to continue this discussion though it might be best done in another thread.

I am somewhat of an expert on wolves (I have extensively studied them for the last 7 years), so this is why I know about this.  I wouldn't be surprised, however, if certain types of bears were similar in their behavior.

[Joe]

x86/64] link=topic=9396.msg119237#msg119237 date=1179382785]
First of all, it's perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, to kill animals, since several (although by no means all) species of animal have exhibited this behavior towards humans, with lions, bears, and wolves coming to

I definitely don't want this discussion to degenerate into an argument, because it's been pretty awesome so far.  But I must point out something almost factual.  The idea that wolves are aggressive or hostile towards humans or have been involved in many incidents where a human has been injured is a complete myth.  For some reason wolves actually intentionally avoid conflict with humans (unless they are blatantly provoked or their food or territory is obviously threatened).  This has puzzled biologists.  Most people fear wolves, but they are one of the most safe and friendly breeds of dogs, much more so than pitbulls, boxers, rottweilers, terriers, etc.  If you want to continue this discussion though it might be best done in another thread.

I am somewhat of an expert on wolves (I have extensively studied them for the last 7 years), so this is why I know about this.  I wouldn't be surprised, however, if certain types of bears were similar in their behavior.

Yeah -- I don't claim to be any type of expert. I was just going off the stereotypical idea that wolves are dangerous. Bears are probably also a bad example, but the main idea of my point still stands that some animals exhibit that behavior.

[MyndFyre]

Socio-evolutionary psychology gives us some great insight as to why humans tend to be not okay with killing other humans, but are okay with killing and eating animals.

Humans, being social creatures, perceive their environment in a way as to simplify it (because we want to minimize cognitive processing); this leads us to establish guidelines or rules of thumb (called "heuristics") that generally work for any given situation, but sometimes lead to cognitive biases.  Social psychologists tend to think of people as "cognitive misers," trying to optimally use cognitive load.

One such way to conserve cognitive capacity is to form associations of the self with other social creatures, and to put other creatures (human or otherwise) into various other groups.  This is a key point to the explanation of phenomena such as racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, and any number of other -isms that we see in society.  As a mental exercise, write "I am:" on a sheet of paper, and then start classifying yourself.  Here I go:

I am:
-- young man
-- Christian
-- blue-eyed
-- American
-- musician
-- programmer
-- social psychologist
-- x86 and vL

It's really neat the different ways you can put yourself into various groups.

Now, when we classify other people, we have an incomplete picture.  Furthermore, because we know many people, we tend to want to simplify the process of classifying them, because we have a limited amount of information storage and processing time.  So, I might classify iago as:

iago is:
-- Canadian
-- programmer
-- security person
-- x86 and vL
-- smart

I don't know much more about iago.  However, I can already say that iago and I match up on at least two social groupings.  I try not to toot my own horn frequently, so I'll forego claiming that I'm smart.  However, during the course of this exercise, I can at least assert that this quality is one I would like to have, if I don't already.  Socially, then, I tend to get along with iago better than some others, because I can identify that he is in several of the same social groupings that I've constructed (I'll call this cognitive mapping and self-identity). 

Now, I don't know Rule very well.  I know that he's in vL.  But I also know that I generally have perceived his posts as arrogant.  (That's not to say that mine with him haven't been either.  But thanks to the "false attribution error," I've assigned the "arrogant" characteristic as due more to his personality than the circumstances surrounding the perception).  So I will say:

Rule is:
-- arrogant
-- vL
-- mathematically-adept.

Rule's in vL, which kind of puts him in my ingroup, but since vL is pretty low on my "me" list, it doesn't really do much for my perception of Rule.  When you add in the "arrogant" perception, which I have a bias against, Rule tends to be in the outgroup. 

iago is clearly more a part of my "ingroup" than Rule, and so I would therefore give iago preferential treatment (an effect of the ingroup bias).  Additionally, because Rule and other people who appear to argue along with Rule's positions, will become more homogenized in argument type, style, and content, which leads to the "outgroup homogeneity bias."  Have you ever heard, "All those Chinese people look the same to me"?  That's a killer example of the outgroup homogeneity bias.

It's one of the reasons that you can't easily remember the faces of one panda and distinguish it from another.  It's also one of the reasons people tend to have difficulty remembering faces of people they barely know - they haven't had the opportunity to learn much about these people.

Where do these biases come from?  Evolutionary psychologists suggest that such biases exist due to hard-coding of evolutionarily-advantageous rules.  It is beneficial, for instance, for people not to kill each other, because as a species, humans can only procreate and reproduce their genetic material with other humans.  Furthermore, species see each other as competition for limited resources.  Why do people tend to see other people as less competition than animals?  Because people tend to see each other as within an ingroup that is ranked more importantly than an ingroup with unknown animals (pets not included).

Developmental psychologists may offer an alternative explanation, partly due to imprinting: when a new animal is born (referring to non-humans, now), many "imprint" the sight of their mothers, and they know that these creatures are permittable and desireable to be with.

Animals (food ones) are in a much more significant outgroup than other humans in that animals, particularly domestic ones, cannot care for themselves, and, well, they can't be reproduced with (though some people try).

It's with this outgroup bias that people tend to justify doing such things to them (animals), and it most likely stems from an evolutionary behavior coded into us.

Such justification doesn't necessarily make the viewpoint right or wrong.  I'm just being thorough. ;)

[trust]

Aside from the biblical reasons (animals were put here for us, man is God's image and killing him is a sin) I think a large part of it is I can identify with humans more. It's the same reason why I would kill a wild animal over a pet. Plus Humans are still a species, people seem to forget that. We got to where we are by asserting dominance.

[iago]

This is a good question, and I've thought about it a lot and basically come to the conclusion that I don't think there's any good reason to think it's ok to kill animals but not humans.

There are, as have been stated here, reasons why it's logical for humans to kill animals but not other humans. The most important reason being, it's how we're programmed. But sometimes we have to use our intelligence to overcome our nature.

The way I see it from a religious perspective, it is most likely that humans have permenant and immortal souls while animals don't. So that's what makes our lives worth more than theirs. However, I'm not convinced that I believe that.

x86/64] link=topic=9396.msg119248#msg119248 date=1179390518]
I am:
-- young man
-- Christian
-- blue-eyed
-- American
-- musician
-- programmer
-- social psychologist
-- x86 and vL

...
iago is:
-- Canadian
-- programmer
-- security person
-- x86 and vL
-- smart

#1: I have blue eyes as well. 3 groupings!
#2: Did you just imply that you aren't smart?

[disco]

x86/64] link=topic=9396.msg119248#msg119248 date=1179390518]
Socio-evolutionary psychology gives us some great insight as to why humans tend to be not okay with killing other humans, but are okay with killing and eating animals....

...

...Such justification doesn't necessarily make the viewpoint right or wrong.  I'm just being thorough. ;)

"What one has thought so often, but never said so well."

[AntiVirus]

x86/64] link=topic=9396.msg119248#msg119248 date=1179390518]
I am:
-- young man
-- Christian
-- blue-eyed
-- American
-- musician
-- programmer
-- social psychologist
-- x86 and vL

...
iago is:
-- Canadian
-- programmer
-- security person
-- x86 and vL
-- smart

#2: Did you just imply that you aren't smart?

I don't know much more about iago.  However, I can already say that iago and I match up on at least two social groupings. I try not to toot my own horn frequently, so I'll forego claiming that I'm smart.  However, during the course of this exercise, I can at least assert that this quality is one I would like to have, if I don't already.

Does that answer your question?

Very good post by the way Myndfyre.  Rather very interesting.

[iago]

I don't know much more about iago.  However, I can already say that iago and I match up on at least two social groupings. I try not to toot my own horn frequently, so I'll forego claiming that I'm smart.  However, during the course of this exercise, I can at least assert that this quality is one I would like to have, if I don't already.

Does that answer your question?

Very good post by the way Myndfyre.  Rather very interesting.

It was 7am (in the morning), come on! :P

[AntiVirus]

I don't know much more about iago.  However, I can already say that iago and I match up on at least two social groupings. I try not to toot my own horn frequently, so I'll forego claiming that I'm smart.  However, during the course of this exercise, I can at least assert that this quality is one I would like to have, if I don't already.

Does that answer your question?

Very good post by the way Myndfyre.  Rather very interesting.

It was 7am (in the morning), come on! :P

Lol!  Well maybe if you would read everything in a post you wouldn't be confused! :P  Mr. Pick-and-choose.