Name the Trait

[Anonymous No.14045018]

P1 - Humans are of moral value

P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.

C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless

[Anonymous No.14045035]

Justify P1

[Anonymous No.14045115]

>>14045035
sophist

[Anonymous No.14045132]

>>14045018
The trait of being moral. Owned lol.

[Anonymous No.14045135]

>>14045018
>P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
Rationality.

[Anonymous No.14045142]

animals are tasty so I eat them

[Anonymous No.14045149]

>>14045142
HOLY SHIT WTFFFFF BAAAAASED

[Anonymous No.14045162]

>>14045135
And what of humans who are incapable of being rational - The severely brain damaged or mentally retarded, babies?

[Anonymous No.14045167]

>>14045018
Non-human animals are not humans.

Non-human humans would be valueless, as they are not human, they do not have the inherent value of a human.

[Anonymous No.14045172]

>>14045018
P2 - Humanness, a trait, is absent in other species

[Anonymous No.14045176]

>>14045162
Babies have medium-term value potential. The mentally retarded and severely brain-damaged are not necessarily valuable, but treating them as if they are is a stipulation of the unspoken social contract.

[Anonymous No.14045186]

>>14045162
>And what of humans who are incapable of being rational - The severely brain damaged or mentally retarded, babies?
Babies are capable of being rational with time. As for the brain damaged and the retarded, can you guess how I feel about them? Would I eat them? No, because I don't think it's healthy to eat human flesh. But do I think they have moral value (which is what P2 asserts), not really.

As for animals, most people would animal they have moral value, but that their nutritive value to humans is more important.

[Anonymous No.14045190]

>>14045135
A man who lets his primate instincts guide his life is not in any way less valuable than a man who ponders logic. In fact, acting based solely on instinct is technically nature's own concrete form of logic. For example, if you were suddenly attacked, it's a rational for you to pump out adrenaline and enter a temporary fight-or-flight mindset.
Your claim that only humans are capable of reason (rationality?) is probably hubris, ignorance, or trolling

[Anonymous No.14045195]

>>14045190
Rationality is not exclusive from instinct, but the application of complex chains of instinct.

[Anonymous No.14045198]

>>14045167
>>14045172
>>14045176
Please, expand on how you came to find humans so valuable, or what your reasons are for being humanist

[Anonymous No.14045201]

>>14045198
I’m a human

[Anonymous No.14045214]

>>14045195
...meaning that instinct is rational, and one's reason is gauged by varying degrees, which is a point that I believe I mentioned in the earlier post. How can you ascribe value to one's instinct then if the degrees of complexity in it are not all uniform (and not even specific to human beings)?

[Anonymous No.14045215]

>>14045198
I am wired and socialized to see humans as valuable, simple as

[Anonymous No.14045222]

>>14045190
>A man who lets his primate instincts guide his life is not in any way less valuable than a man who ponders logic.
I disagree. This is why I hate niggers and don't relax around them.
>In fact, acting based solely on instinct is technically nature's own concrete form of logic.
This is nonsensical.

The rest of your point is just a conflation of reasoning and instinct. They are different things so it makes no sense to conflate them. The fact is that all animals have instinct; only humans have rationality and this gives us heightened moral value.

Farm animals are cool and we should mitigate their suffering; abandon factory farming, treat them well as they live; in short, guarantee them good lives and gentle deaths when the time is right. But saying you're not going to eat them is gay, they will die someday and they may as well provide nutrition to higher animals as a sacrificial death. Their moral value concerning death is subjugated to their nutritive value.

[Anonymous No.14045223]

>>14045201
>X is X
>Therefore, X has value

[Anonymous No.14045228]

>>14045198
>or what your reasons are for being humanist
You don't even have to be a humanist to admit that humans have more moral value than animals.

[Anonymous No.14045229]

>>14045223
yep

[Anonymous No.14045240]

>>14045222
Based trips.
But your racism is just an extension of this humanism, you're just saying that you don't value the human life of other tribes of humans on top of what I already presume you to think, which is that you don't value the animal life of other species of living beings because they are not your species of living being. And this is because... you're a human of the [category] tribe.

>This is nonsensical.
To act instinctually is to act rationally. That is my point. It is not a nonsensical point. How else should you act? That's a question of existential scale at that point, isn't it? Then at least consider logic within a context of nature.

And something about farm animals but it really doesn't have to do with OP's post

>>14045229
This is the rationale you're speaking of, ^ Anon ^, this right here

[Anonymous No.14045248]

>>14045214
The brain works on bivalence inherent to qualia. Value is an abstract differential of comparing different combinations of qualia, where predicted combinations are weighed against each other. High value describes combinations with the largest degree of positive valence, while low value is associated with negative valence. Decisions are not made solely from a standpoint of seeking to maximize positive valence, but also minimize negative valence.

Humans have value because social instincts are deeply ingrained in my psyche, and harm and death coming to those of my tribe is negatively valent qualia as an emergent measure to preserve the social caste.

There is no negative valence association with the death of a non-human animal. There is however a positive valence association for the consumption of the flesh of an animal, as a nutritionally dense staple that goes a long way to preserving stasis.

[Anonymous No.14045260]

>>14045248
Verbose mental gymnastics. You've stumped me. Care to explain in layman's terms?

[Anonymous No.14045287]

>>14045240
No, I value animal lives, but I don't see them as trumping the nutritive value they provide. I'm not a humanist in any sense. I value humans, but I don't see them as the most valuable beings and I think our lives ought to be subjected to something greater than ours (i.e. God), in the same way that animals' lives are subjected to something higher.

Also, what's instinctual may be rational at times, but I wouldn't conflate the two. Desire is instinctual, but a rational man may find himself in many situations where he must combat that desire.

And as for the farm animal stuff, I think OP is implying we shouldn't eat meat lmao

[Anonymous No.14045289]

>>14045260
As a social animal, I care about the pain and suffering of my brothers and sisters, as it's a self-selecting trait in a system where such traits easily propogate.

This does not extend to non-humans, as it's not based in a wish to stop suffering and death in and of themselves. And counterproductive to caring about the death of these creatures, non-humans are excellent sources of material that keep myself alive.

I wouldn't expect an extraterrestrial of comparable intelligence to care for my suffering as it peeled my nervous system from my body.

[Anonymous No.14045302]

>>14045248
>>14045289

you should test this theory by going your nearest k9 police academy and shooting one of the dogs with a rifle

[Anonymous No.14045317]

>>14045302
It is hardly a theory. The witnessing officer will not be as deeply affected as he would if I shot another cop.

[Anonymous No.14045318]

>>14045302
Cool straw-man.

[Anonymous No.14045333]

>>14045289
>As a social animal, I care about the pain and suffering of my brothers and sisters, as it's a self-selecting trait in a system where such traits easily propogate.
Ok, I agree. But I don't care about the pain and suffering of my brothers and sisters because I am a social animal, I care about it because I have empathy for them.

>This does not extend to non-humans, as it's not based in a wish to stop suffering and death in and of themselves. And counterproductive to caring about the death of these creatures, non-humans are excellent sources of material that keep myself alive.
That's when I can't agree. I don't see why I can't empathize with any living being, regardless of what form it takes.

As for the nutritional value of "non-humans" you could say that because it works, it's morally right. Like, using diesel fuel works, but is it not better to use gasoline if that will do the same job?

I think I might be one of those extraterrestrials of slightly comparable intelligence. I can't understand your speech, for one thing, and I don't know what it means to peel suffering from your nervous system. You might as well cut me down, I guess, since I am not capable of your reason. Or have I again made a mistake in interpreting

[Anonymous No.14045358]

>>14045317

your argument is framed in a way that suggests that all humans think that another human life is always more valuable than an animal life, and that humans don't frequently incorporate animals into their "social family". you're just placing your own personal experience as an objective fact to all of humanity; whereas in a crisis, i would certainly save my dog over a couple of my subhuman coworkers

>>14045318

it isn't a strawman, but it definitely is cool. i was laughing my ass off when i typed that shit

[Anonymous No.14045404]

>>14045358

also, just to further question you, what is your definition of all humans taking priority over animal life? i said i would save my dog over a few of my coworkers, now how many racists would be saddened by the murder of an individual in a race that they disliked, or an opponent in a war? a mentally retarded person?

[Anonymous No.14045586]

>>14045302
>shoot dog
>damaging property
>shoot cop
>murder