Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the February 2023 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul by Mitzi Perdue




https://mitziperdue.com/

The author's website mentions about making huge donations to stop human trafficking. We should admire her effort on doing good for the fellow human beings.

But at the same time she has observed and admired her late husband becoming a 'big shot' in the business field at the expense of thousands of innocent animals.

My late husband Frank Perdue grew his father-and-son chicken operation into a company that today employs 21,000 people and is the largest producer of organic chicken in the world.

(Location 128 - Kindle Version)

How a heart that aches when humans suffer can remain oblivious towards suffering of animals? Why humans matter the most rather than any other living being in life and death situations? 

[Alias]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)
This is not true of all animals: they generally care about family first and friends second - even if their friends are of another species. For example, a dog might defend her pups or siblings against a human, but will also defend her human companion from another dog, but not vice versa. Dogs are a good example, because they form interspecies relationships quite easily. A dog will defend his feline friend from another dog, or the sheep he's guarding. A horse might also side with a goat or cat he's befriended against a strange human, but probably not from his owner.
IOW non-human animals make their value judgments according to personal feelings, but human have a more complicated value system. It goes approximately (with some variations): family, friends/country (that can be a real struggle to decide for some people) ideology/country, race, sex, species/exceptional friends from other species, pets, service animals, draft animals, wild animals, food animals, fowl, fish.

[John Morgan 6]

Humans are unique among all living beings in their capacity for self-awareness, empathy, and creativity. This allows us to understand our own existence and to make choices that shape our lives and the world around us. These qualities set us apart from other species and make us special.

Self-awareness allows us to reflect on our own thoughts, emotions, and actions. This gives us the ability to change our behavior and make decisions based on our own goals and values. Empathy, or the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, allows us to form meaningful relationships and to care for each other. It is a key component of what makes us human and distinguishes us from other animals.

Creativity is another defining aspect of humanity. We have the ability to imagine new ideas and to bring them to life through our art, music, writing, and other forms of expression. This allows us to express ourselves and to create a more meaningful and beautiful world.

These unique qualities give humans a responsibility to care for ourselves and each other, as well as the planet we call home. We have the ability to make decisions that impact the world around us and to work together to create a better future for all. By valuing and prioritizing our humanity, we can continue to make progress and to create a world that is more just, compassionate, and fulfilling for all.

In conclusion, humans matter the most because of our unique capacity for self-awareness, empathy, and creativity. These qualities set us apart from other living beings and give us a responsibility to care for ourselves and each other, as well as the planet we call home.

[Pattern-chaser]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

[JackDaydream]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

[Pattern-chaser]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

For me, even this is still a little toxic. You back away from "exploitation" toward "stewardship", but you stop there. Why not complete your journey, and present humanity as just another animal, one of many? Why put us 'in charge' by electing us to "stewardship"?

[JackDaydream]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

For me, even this is still a little toxic. You back away from "exploitation" toward "stewardship", but you stop there. Why not complete your journey, and present humanity as just another animal, one of many? Why put us 'in charge' by electing us to "stewardship"?

Okay, it may seem that the idea of stewardship reinforces our role at the top of the hierarchy. The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally. Other animals have not developed in such a way as to dominate the planet. Cats, dogs and horses don't chop down trees, invent or ride in motor cars. While human beings are animals, their role in having greater control within the scheme of nature is significant and it is in this context that I mention stewardship rather than wishing to assert actual superiority.

[Pattern-chaser]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

For me, even this is still a little toxic. You back away from "exploitation" toward "stewardship", but you stop there. Why not complete your journey, and present humanity as just another animal, one of many? Why put us 'in charge' by electing us to "stewardship"?

Okay, it may seem that the idea of stewardship reinforces our role at the top of the hierarchy. The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally. Other animals have not developed in such a way as to dominate the planet. Cats, dogs and horses don't chop down trees, invent or ride in motor cars. While human beings are animals, their role in having greater control within the scheme of nature is significant and it is in this context that I mention stewardship rather than wishing to assert actual superiority.

The problem with the way in which human beings have developed culturally is that it misses just seeing ourselves as being like other animals.

[JackDaydream]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

For me, even this is still a little toxic. You back away from "exploitation" toward "stewardship", but you stop there. Why not complete your journey, and present humanity as just another animal, one of many? Why put us 'in charge' by electing us to "stewardship"?

Okay, it may seem that the idea of stewardship reinforces our role at the top of the hierarchy. The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally. Other animals have not developed in such a way as to dominate the planet. Cats, dogs and horses don't chop down trees, invent or ride in motor cars. While human beings are animals, their role in having greater control within the scheme of nature is significant and it is in this context that I mention stewardship rather than wishing to assert actual superiority.

The problem with the way in which human beings have developed culturally is that it misses just seeing ourselves as being like other animals.

The only problem with your argument is that it may gloss over the nature of differences. Even 'animals' is a generalised term. There are vast differences between mice and chimpanzees, although none of know exactly what the experiences of any of these beings is on a phenomenological level. In humans it is likely that language plays a significant role.

The problem may be that human beings may deny the way in which they are animals. This leads to grandiosity and inflated sense of importance. Some, especially in religious thinking, have argued that human beings have souls and animals don't. I understand that there was even at some point in Christian theology a speculation that men had souls and women did not. The construction and justification of humans as masters and lords of the earth may be the key problem. We wear clothes, write on smartphones and strut around, sometimes forgetting the basis of essential 'animal' needs, especially those at the lower rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

[Pattern-chaser]

The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally.

The problem with the way in which human beings have developed culturally is that it misses just seeing ourselves as being like other animals.

The only problem with your argument is that it may gloss over the nature of differences. Even 'animals' is a generalised term. There are vast differences between mice and chimpanzees, although none of know exactly what the experiences of any of these beings is on a phenomenological level. In humans it is likely that language plays a significant role.

All living things are different, both as species and as individuals. The "nature" of these differences is as varied as the differences are, i.e. they vary widely and wildly. OK, it's important to recognise that some differences are more, er, significant (?) than others; they are not 'just' differences, all equal in impact and import.

I see no reason to conclude, as the OP seems to do, if we are to take the topic title as an indication, that humans do matter "the most". The question asked seems to assume our superiority and ownership (of the whole world), and simple asks why this is or should be so.

We are all living things, living in the same world ... but not living in the same way.

[JackDaydream]

The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally.

The problem with the way in which human beings have developed culturally is that it misses just seeing ourselves as being like other animals.

The only problem with your argument is that it may gloss over the nature of differences. Even 'animals' is a generalised term. There are vast differences between mice and chimpanzees, although none of know exactly what the experiences of any of these beings is on a phenomenological level. In humans it is likely that language plays a significant role.

All living things are different, both as species and as individuals. The "nature" of these differences is as varied as the differences are, i.e. they vary widely and wildly. OK, it's important to recognise that some differences are more, er, significant (?) than others; they are not 'just' differences, all equal in impact and import.

I see no reason to conclude, as the OP seems to do, if we are to take the topic title as an indication, that humans do matter "the most". The question asked seems to assume our superiority and ownership (of the whole world), and simple asks why this is or should be so.

We are all living things, living in the same world ... but not living in the same way.

Actually, I agree with you and found the title a little strange. I wondered if it was written in such a way to provoke a response. I definitely see it as being problematic to argue that humans matter most, as superior. I suppose where it would probably get most critical is where someone had the choice of saving a human or an animal's life. Of course, it might be a bit like deciding whether to save a family member or a stranger. However, I do know some people who prefer animals to people, so such a decision may not be completely straightforward.

[Alias]

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

You're right, it's in there, but that book was written by humans, who gave their attitude to the book, not the other way around. They were already farmers and users for some time before they got 'round to writing.

You back away from "exploitation" toward "stewardship", but you stop there. Why not complete your journey, and present humanity as just another animal, one of many? Why put us 'in charge' by electing us to "stewardship"?

Even stewardship is hierarchical, with wonderful us in charge. Pre-agricultural peoples regarded humans and other animals as kin, created by the same nature spirit, either at the same time or as a collaborative effort, each with their own kind of talent and wisdom.

In both North American and African folklore, the invention or language and fire play a major role in separating humans from the rest of nature. Those stories of temptation and hubris are a close parallel to the fall from grace story in the bible. Pre-civilized people were very much aware of their cultural difference - and that it was a mixed blessing - at its most hopeful. At its most pessimistic, it's the original sin, the start of our perdition. In some ways, they were smarter than we are, more self-aware and psychologically astute.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the February 2023 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul by Mitzi Perdue




https://mitziperdue.com/

The author's website mentions about making huge donations to stop human trafficking. We should admire her effort on doing good for the fellow human beings.

But at the same time she has observed and admired her late husband becoming a 'big shot' in the business field at the expense of thousands of innocent animals.

My late husband Frank Perdue grew his father-and-son chicken operation into a company that today employs 21,000 people and is the largest producer of organic chicken in the world.

(Location 128 - Kindle Version)

How a heart that aches when humans suffer can remain oblivious towards suffering of animals? Why humans matter the most rather than any other living being in life and death situations? 

This entire topic is off track since "mattering" is a subjective description given by an observer, not an objective quality that can be reliably quantified.

Thus the OP needs to be asked: "matters to whom?" No surprise Mrs Perdue thinks Mr Perdue mattered more than all chickens and just about all humans, but that's a pretty low bar. Who cares about Mrs Perdue's opinion? It doesn't "matter" to me, how about you?

So basically it devolves into "humans think humans matter most", whoopdi doo. Cats think cats matter most. Ants think ants matter most.

[Alias]

Cats think cats matter most. Ants think ants matter most.

How do you know? All humans know is what humans think - everything they attribute to other species is speculation or imagination or wishful thinking.

[LuckyR]

Cats think cats matter most. Ants think ants matter most.

How do you know? All humans know is what humans think - everything they attribute to other species is speculation or imagination or wishful thinking.

I believe that any animals living in the wild that do not work 24/7 to promote their own and their family's best interest don't pass along their genetic material. What's your understanding?