Devil's advocate: Isn't this the same for adults? Most of us would prefer a person for a colleague or sexual partner, therefore, let's save humans.
To explore this deeper, consider whether you'd rather save an old person or a young one, attractive or ugly, same sex or opposite sex, ...?
Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"? If that's the case, is the life of a person with a high IQ objectively more valuable than the life of a person with a lower IQ?
Is it because we think animals aren't capable of feeling fear, pain, anxiety, and love?
Is it a tribalism thing? If we assume that elephants, chimps, or whales are capable of some level of ethical reasoning, are they expected to also value human life higher than their own, or would that be considered immoral because they're "species traitors"? Is the "moral" expectation that a chimp would value chimp life higher, a dog would value dog life higher, and a human would value human life higher?
> Is it because we think animals aren't capable of feeling fear, pain, anxiety, and love?
Historically, I think this was a common justification. Although, the conversation has shifted and will likely continue to do so, as we have realized that animals have many of the feelings that we have, even if it isn't exactly the same.
> Is the "moral" expectation that a chimp would value chimp life higher, a dog would value dog life higher, and a human would value human life higher?
Yes, most likely. Although the world would probably look very different if other animals were capable of discussing such things :)
This is obviously true, and if it ever came down to making a split-second decision about saving your own life, you would expect this trait to drive the show.
However, moral puzzlers like the trolley problem don't work the same way. You might know that "save the humans, let the dogs die" is the rational HN-approved answer, but you might also know that it's the cold, calculating, heartless answer that will land you a spot in hell if you don't feel at least a little bit bad about it.
You can simultaneously be hard-wired to save yourself and your human peers in a split-second decision, while also being disgusted by humanity as a whole, while also also feeling empathy for dogs as Good and Pure beings of endless affection that we adults clearly don't deserve.
At least the kids know what's what.
IMO, yes. That, and, I think it's likely that most aren't self-aware, or are at least less self-aware.
> If that's the case, is the life of a person with a high IQ objectively more valuable than the life of a person with a lower IQ?
Possibly—it's just that trying to make that judgement opens up enormous possibilities for horrible outcomes! Just to scratch the surface, IQ tests are very rough measures of intelligence, because they rely heavily on cultural knowledge and are thus biased against certain cultures. You don't want to attempt to make life-and-death decisions based on fuzzy measures like that.
But, I'd posit you should choose to save a dolphin over a dog (and not just because dolphins are endangered).
I think AGI will kill humanity and there's nothing we can do about it, but I hope I'm not right.
If we were to consider human lives equal with animal life we would have to change so much it would not be practical so at current state it is not even something ww would consider so many of us simply try to ignore the issue.
I think it was a point in history where something like one quarter of or men had already kiiled a guy once.
Get over the killing of meat
It's not surprising that the child would lean towards protecting the animals that they see as under their care, or needing more care than adults.
And it's not that they value all lives equally, it's that they value dogs over humans.
Adults become so overly conditioned to accept that killing animals for our daily lives is normal, that we no longer register animal death as an ethical issue.
It is normal. Historically speaking, not doing so is what’s not normal. The nature of this planet is that every living thing lives off eating other living things.
if you treat it as a given that value for human life is innate then your society may fail to foster the conditions which promote human flourishing. many adults are also ethically immature and if the people who all do care about human life all say “well of course human life is valuable, it is stupid to study” then all those ethically immature adults spend their entire lives trampling on everyone else.
"Homeless man runs into burning animal shelter in Atlanta to save dogs and cats" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/homeless-man-runs-burni...
Any idea about mammalian->other kingdoms?
It keeps people that only came to the Louvre to see it (and nothing else) well-contained to one area.
Leaves more room for me to look at the actually interesting stuff!
Like "Psyche Revived By Cupid's Kiss" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_Revived_by_Cupid%27s_Ki...)!
And there's the matter that I am of the firm opinion that art being damaged doesn't stop it from being art. It just adds to the story behind the piece.
Also, I fucking love cats.
Mona Lisa is irreplaceable. The world won't miss one more cat. Losing an irreplaceable piece of history makes the whole of humanity poorer.
Cats have the evolutionary benefit of being cute to humans. Would you even consider saving say a rat or an eel in such a situation?
An adult needn't make that call as they tend to be able to look after themselves.
> but I would also have no hesitation whatsoever in killing it to save the life of a random stranger I've never met.
No hesitation, really? Not even a bit? I can't fathom how.
You would let a person die to save your pet?
i also don't feel like human life has some intrinsic value. my dog brings a lot of love and happiness to my life. i've known a lot of people who bring pain and suffering to others. why value a person that may or may not bring happiness to the world over something that does bring happiness?
i think the idea that there is a binary solution to all problems is a poor world view, but 'black and white'[0] thinking is a tell tell sign of abuse and considered a standard trauma response.
> People die all the time. Animals die all the time too. But this animal dying would have a huge negative impact on my life, whereas whether or not someone I've never met would not.
I also agree with you that human life doesn't have intrinsic value. Lots of humans are "good", but lots cause a lot of pain and harm to lots of other people and animals too.
So choosing a stranger of whom I know nothing over my own pet? Nope. Not doing that.
Children are so clueless and innocent.
E.g would you save 10000 family pet dogs or an old person in pain who will die within a month for sure?
Now take this to another extreme, would you rather save the life of ONE giant panda or one hundred humans? I think all reasonable people will press the button to save the live of one giant panda and kill one hundred humans before you can finish the question.
Edit: Google says there are only 1,864 pandas in the wild with an additional four hundred in captivity. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+giant+pandas+are+th...
The panda won’t be missed by many.
