| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> Do you support the view that the set of humans is only a subset of the set of alQuestion: Do you support the view that the set of humans is only a subset of the set of all living beings!? Do you support the view that the set of humans is only a subset of the set of all beings, both animate (animals, plants) and inanimate (rocks, metals, air, water!.!.!.)!? And humans are not in any way "more valuable" or "more sacred" than any other beings!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I don't believe that humans are more valuable/sacred than any other living thing!. Just because we can build buildings and decode our own DNA does not make us gods!. There are many interperatations of the word "smart"!. Look at what we've done to Earth; we've done some pretty serious damage to it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Kilpineito Brynhild, the first part of it is true, that the "set of humans" is a subset of all beings, things, whatever!. As to more valuable, consider this: what if there were no air!? No oxygen to breathe!? THEN how valuable are humans!? Or if there were no water!? No food!? etc!. Now, sacred is another thing altogether, getting into the realm of religion!. And, of course, some things are sacred to one religion, but not to others; which might view something as sacred that the first religion does not hold to be sacred!. So, to answer ALL your questions, one would need to "know where you are coming from"!. Sets and subsets are part of the theories of mathematics; valuable vs!. not so valuable can be philosophy, mathematics, business, religion, etc!. Sacredness, though, is restricted to religion!. You can't mix up the different disciplines and receive an answer that fits all!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Clearly the human species is, by definition, a subset of the set of all living beings!. "Importance" however, is an entirely subjective term so you must define "important to whom" or "important to what"!. Since I am inherently egocentric, the importance of any other life form or inanimate structure is judged entirely on its ability to serve my needs and wants!. Of course, we humans often take a much too short-term view and fail to understand or appreciate the long-term importance to us of all of the other inhabitants of the planet!. For a very interesting and well-conceived discussion of this concept, see "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn RandWww@QuestionHome@Com yes, but in any given situation i will always choose myself as most valuable because i look to please myself before a rock!. it is true in reality my existence may not be anymore important then that or any rock!. you can not measure value of animate or inatimate objects because you do not innately know the effect each has had on reality as a whole!. so yes i agree!.Www@QuestionHome@Com i believe we must all learn to live together although we are all different which means we should all be treated differently that goes for other people and animals plants rocks and trees!. a rock in my yard does not need to be treated like i would treat my best friend there is no need for that just as i shouldnt treat my dog as i would the rock in my backyard we just need to learn how to coexist in peace which i dont really see ever happeningWww@QuestionHome@Com If the rest of the world believed as we, the waters of the earth would still be pure!.!.!.the gold they seek would not be theirs to take, and the respect and love we shared would spiral the universe into utopia!.!.!.!.Any questions!?Www@QuestionHome@Com Being a mighty robot, I think all living things are equally worthless and only worthy of destruction!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I support the first view expressed, but must confess a certain strong prejudice in favor of my native subset!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I support the view that humans are a strict subset of homo-sapiens!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I guess it's all a matter of opinion !. !. !.Www@QuestionHome@Com |