The informal phrase "guinea pig" is used as a metaphor for something or someone to be the disregarded test subject of something. (Kind of like how Farmer always says Period 1 kids are the guinea pigs of AP Stats).
But this phrase is grounded in some dark truth. The United States alone kills more than 110 million lab animals a year in experiments. Of course, if we were just doing this for fun (which I certainly wouldn't), all those "mad scientists" would be locked away in Blackgate. Obviously, they're not, because these experiments and deaths are "justified."
The justification behind these experiments is that the deaths of lab animals will help save the lives of humans. In other words, a small sacrifice for the greater good.
As a living, breathing human myself, I certainly love living. In fact, dying would be pretty annoying indeed. So to be honest, I really don't care much about these lab animals dying, if it means not risking my own life, and the lives of the people I love.
Going back to our 110 million statistic (the number of lab animals killed a year in America), its important to note that America has more than 330 million people living in it.
So when you really think about it, that's like a animal dying per human every 3 years, which isn't that much of a sacrifice, especially considering all the meat we eat. That's a whole nother story though, which I wrote about here.
Regardless, I think it's fair to say that these lab animal deaths are somewhat justified. Obviously, I'd love to live in a world with no unnessary death from any species, but if it means protecting the ones I love, then all power to us humans.
But where do we draw the line? 110 million animals is quite a lot. But what about 220 million? 500 million? 10 billion? A trillion? You get the point. At what point do we draw the red line, and decide that a human life is worth sacrificing for some animals? And are animal lives even worth saving, if it means sacrificing just one human?
Don't human lives have "intrinsic value?" But what gives us these value? Then should criminals, thieves and sexual predators (like EDP's) be a part of that too?
I think it's pretty obivous that human lives are more valuable. But are human lives more valuable in the sense that a cow is more valuable than a hamster, or than a hamster is more valuable than an spider?
What about disabled, severly autistic or bedbound humans, then? Would an active chimpanzee be more valuable than them? Probably still not, in my opinion.
So if human lives are so unique, so special, and so valuable, well then-
What gives human life intrinsic value?
For the sake of this article, let's assume God doesn't exist. In other words, we're looking at lives from an athiest's perspective. Obviously, religious texts like the Bible and the Quran give humans more value.
But I want to do this to make sure we really have a moral basis for these decisions, and not just "because God (or some other deity) said so." After all, that would make this article pointless (and not as fun to write of course).
So to understand why human lives are deemed so valuable, let's look at a few arguments we often make to justify human dominance, from event religious folks and athiests alike.
To start with, let's see the argument that humans have intrinsic value because-
"Humans Are the Most Intelligent"
The problem with this argument is to say 100% of humans have intrinsic value, 100% of humans should be more intelligent than the smartest non-human animal. But of course, not all men are created equal.
In other words, we have plenty of human idiots living on planet Earth. A quick scroll on TikTok (aka CCP yt shorts) will show you just that.
But more seriously, we have some REALLY stupid humans around, such as mentally ill people or humans born will severe brain damage. So if your worth is based on intelligence, then the 350,000 humans in comas shouldn't have the right to live, or at least not a higher right to live than an active rat or a chicken.
Now obviously, there's something incredibly icky about the thought of unplugging ol' Grandpa Joe just to save a Tyson chicken, solely on the basis of intelligence. I think there's something different about humans (assuming there's no God to give us intrinsic value) that intelligence fails to justify.
So if intelligence doesn't give humans intrinsic value, then maybe it's because-
"Humans Have the Capability For Empathy"
This is quite similar to the intelligence argument, except that in this case, we've replaced "intelligence" with "empathy". And once again, let's use the same line of reasoning to pick apart this argument, and show where it goes wrong.
Now obviously, I'm sure a majority of the population would agree that saving a golden retriver over a sadistic, un-empathetic psychopath who murders innocents in the streets of Detroit in their free time is worth it. But let's think about things a different way.
Let's say you have your average American incel in their 20s, with no family or friends. He kind of just lives his life, drinking Mountain Dew and smoking ciggies. He's employed, lives off of welfare, and plays Minecraft in his spare time.
But this kind of brutal lifestyle has sucked all the joy and color out of him. When he sees a homeless guy on the street, he'll try to steal their money cup if he can for extra change. If he sees a child crying on the playground, he'll laugh it off. Granted, he's not sadistic or a serial killer, but he certainly lacks empathy, and quite clearly.
Now let's say we have an American blackbird, one of the smartest creatures in the animal kingdom. Raised in captivity at an animal santuary, but with a very comfortable lifestyle, lil birdy here knows and appreciates the human love she gets on a daily basis.
If she has extra seeds to spare, she'll share it with her fellow blackbirds, rather than being selfish and storing it. If she sees an injured chick, even if its not her own, she'll squawk so her human caretakers will fix the chick up.
In all measures, this blackbird is far more empathic compared to the human in every way.
Now let's say both of the incel and the blackbird have found themselves trapped in a burning building by themselves, with just the two of them in it (yes, the blackbird could technically fly, but let's assume not for the sake of this thought experiment). When the fire department arrives, who do you think they would and SHOULD save?
Now obviously, the firefighters would save the human, but is that decision justified? After all, the blackbird is so much more empathetic than the Minecraft loser incel.
The answer is- of course its justified! In no world would it ever make sense to save a blackbird over a literal human.
So if the empathy argument doesn't make sense, then maybe its because-
"Humans Landed on Top, That's Just the Way Things Are"
This is probably one of the best arguments that at face value, is hard to fight against. But just like the other contentions, dig deeper, and you'll find an empty void underneath.
This argument revolves around the idea that because humans have landed on top, our dominance and worth is justified. But that only works, and makes us feel happy, because WE'RE the ones on top. Here's a fun way to think about it.
Let's go back 300,000 years with a world ruled by the strongest animals, aka the mammoths, lions, and gorillas. The smartest humans around are still biologically the same, but still drink from dirty lakes and use basic wooden spears to hunt. And they are by no means the strongest animals around, in fact, probably one of the weakest, with a poor biology and not enough technology around yet.
Would it be fair to say that all of a sudden, this human from 300,000 years ago, 99.99% biologically the same to a human in present day, is suddenly worth less than a mammoth or lion? Of course not!
My Personal Thoughts About Human Value
To make it short, I believe that humans have an innate intrinsic value that just can't be measured. I would sacrifice millions of chimps, cows, and gorillas if it meant just saving one human, even if he/she was a criminal or such.
The reason why I started this blog by creating a hypothetical, to assume there was no God to give humans an intrinsic value, was because I wanted to see if there would be any justification for a higher value of a human life that wasn't based on the Bible, Torah, or Quran.
But when you really think about, there's no true reason why human lives are so special. There's no such scientific or non-religious moral justification you can put to valuing a human life over even two animal lives. There's no reason to explain why we should save a lonely 42 year old incel with no friends or family instead of a much happier grey wolf living wonderfully with his pack.
At the end of the day, as someone who believes in the Bible myself (though I don't practice its teachings as much as I should), religion is the only justification for the value of human life.
This is just my way of thinking of it though, and its just an opinion, so you can take it with a grain of salt.
Just know that in the end, maybe our society's absolute morality isn't so "absolute" after all.
One last note- if you enjoyed reading this, the absolute BEST way you could help me out is by sharing this blog with friends. With the magic of Google AdSense, more clicks means more support for this blog and passion project.
Use this link- thepennyofficial.blogspot.com to share on Instagram, WhatsApp, iMessage, Facebook (if anyone under the age of 40 still uses that), Snapchat, you get the point. Anything helps, and I couldn’t thank you more. Once again, thanks for reading The Penny.
Comments
Post a Comment