Endangered species-Speciesism?

[Blackitty]

Is the life of a single child really worth more than one of an endangered species? Speciesism?

I am trying to get my head around the concept of Speciesism and the implications it may have when considering the inherent value of human animal life VS non human animal life. I would love to hear people’s thoughts on this.

I identify as an anti-Speciesist. I don’t automatically perceive the life of a human to have greater value than the life of an animal. That being said, I recognise speciesism doesn’t automatically grant equality to every species? And that you can still value a human life more based on cognitive ability/ capacity for suffering and this would still be anti speciesist. For example, placing the interests of a dog over an insect because the dog has great cognitive abilities and therefore has a greater capacity for suffering. Speciesism only applies when value is placed on something solely due to being a member of a particular species. At least this is my understanding so please correct me if I am mistaken.

In the case of the small child who fell into a gorilla enclosure was it not a speciesist move to shoot the gorilla as it is placing higher value on the child’s life due to his species? Would it have been possible to of still shot the gorilla without subscribing to speciesism?

Any thoughts on speciesism and that particular incident is welcome. Thank you.

 

[silva]

Just so many variables! Whatever species you are you're most likely to going to favor one of your own species, or one that you're accustomed to simply out of instinct
Say you have the ability to only save one--the animal you've lived with for years or a human that's a complete stranger, you know nothing about? No arguments about being able to save both--only one. I don't know that I could answer that myself. If it were between two strangers, one animal one human I would certainly save the human.

What is troubling is that it's not these random concerns, but the absolutely unnecessary speciesism that exists. There is no reason for doing animal testing for things used on humans--we have the research to prove this is totally useless and barbaric. Then there are the finer lines, like using animals or their products in medicines for humans where we don't have equivalent options (I'm just using an example I don't know much about ...)

There are so many levels to speciesism! To me, it comes down more to privilege rather than need

 

[Lou]

Discussing speciesism is great. But I think it's best discussed in terms of hamburgers vs cows.
and I think you MUST not confuse the issue with self-preservation or self-defense scenarios. Those kinds of problems are more philosophical debates and the most ethical decision can usually be found in the greater good equation.

Your gorilla example is great especially since it really happened. And without manipulating the actual events - it was a Speciesist because the gorilla was not a known hazard. He may have been just going to help the child. however, there is a risk assessment problem there as well. So it is not a straightforward Speciesist or even utilitarian problem.

Trolley problems are great for evaluating philosophies. The gorilla or the kid would be a good trolley problem if you knew that the gorilla was going to kill the kid.

I don't think rushing into a burning house to save your cat is a fair trolley problem even if you hadn't rushed in to save someone else's baby. But if you put a cat and a baby on the trolley tracks - it's not speciesism when you sacrifice the cat. Just like it's not ageist when you choose to save the baby and not the old man. It is just the harsh mathematics of the utilitarian philosophy.

But I would caution getting much insight into Speciesism by setting up trolley problems.

Meanwhile, all this talk of trolley problems reminds me of this dad and toddler and how the toddler deals with trolley problems.

So much for kids being naturally compasionate.

 

[Mostly Random Dude]

It all depends on how you perceive these problems emotionally, because every philosophy is simply an emotional justification of our actions.

From the statistical perspective, a death of a child is an acceptable loss to avoid the loss of a breeding mountain gorilla (or some other species close to MVP levels). Here is a similar, though less emergency-driven consideration. For example, I give a fair amount of money to species conservation while there are definitely African, Asian or even US-based kids who are dying of various poverty-related causes at the same time. I am pretty sure the mothers of said kids would be very upset should they learn of my choices, but frankly I don't give a ****. Humans are wildly successful as species, while a loss of a single breeding individual might be the end of a particular genetic line. Most extinctions in the recent past were purely human fault.

As for saving old or young - as this pandemic has demonstrated, we are willing to sacrifice future lives of the young people to save the old and frail. There are multiple studies that are showing that we are actually net reducing life-years by instituting lockdowns and other socio-economic repressions. So it really boils down to what polls better from political perspective, not to an actual rational choice.