NB If you would like to attend, please sign up on
https://meetu.ps/e/PqN3g/yyrgS/i
Welcome to a new season of philosophical meetups, our invaluable every-3-weekly opportunities open to all our regulars and new participants alike to get together, unpack topics, share our insights and ideas, and to meaningfully connect!
Regarding this opening meetup, we have been asked to exceptionally finish by 17h45. So let's aim to begin our discussion this time right at 15h - which would mean arriving as early as you can from 14h30 on to allow enough time for everyone to order drinks and/or food from the bar. Thanks to all for this!
-------------------------------------------
Should we consider all human lives as equally valuable?
What about non-human vs human lives: Should we consider a non-human life as equally valuable as a human life?
Interestingly enough, this 2nd question can be seen either as an extension (or corollary) of the 1st or, equally validly, as a starting point necessary to resolve before even beginning to address the 1st question.
For example, is the value of a mosquito's life equal to the value of a human's life?
If we answer that a mosquito's life has less value because mosquitos are inherently annoying and transmit diseases, would we then not also have to conclude that some groups of humans also have less value, such as those Europeans who first arrived in America, annoying the locals and transmitting diseases?
If we argue that we humans have greater value than non-humans because we are stronger (we control the world), would we then not have to apply the same reasoning ("might is right") when it comes to power differences among humans?
Would comparing different species' survival lengths during earth's 4.5 billion year history (not) be a more justifiable and meaningful way to assess different species' relative values on earth? If so, would we not then have to apply this same reasoning when it comes to human individuals' and groups' differing abilities to survive?
What about the argument that our highly-developed intellects, nervous systems, consciousness and overall intelligence mean our lives are more valuable? Is this argument nevertheless (not) derived from a biased subjectivity, appealing to intellect and cognition rather than to instinctive behaviour, running speed, ability to fly, camouflage powers, etc as the main criteria determining value? And would this argument (not) necessarily imply that a more intelligent person is more valuable than someone less intelligent?
What arguments can be made that would support/establish the view that all human lives should be considered equally valuable?
If we are able indeed to convincingly argue that all human lives are equally valuable, would our arguments then (not) just as much force us to conclude that human and non-human lives too are equally valuable?
Illustration (only): generated upon my design request by ChatGPT
Also check out other Meetups in Brussels.
|
