Persuasive essay

A human's life is no better than an ant’s

Felipe Fajer 10A

Ethos

-Schopenhauer believed that having no animal rights was a barbarity

-Buddhists believe no harm should be done to animals because all animals are afraid
of dying

Pathos

-How would you feel killing insects?

-Do you feel powerful killing an ant?

Logos

-Life can be measured with any type of value (contribution, supplies, etc.) as a living
creature

-If a life value exists, it shall be based on each group, my needs are not the same as an
ant colony
 Is our life not more significant than an ant’s or a bug's life?no, Are we more entitled

to live than an ant because they are so defenseless, minor, or repugnant? Do you feel

powerful quashing an ant then? so if human life is thought to be better than an ant's does that

mean animal testing is ok? Is an ant less valuable since it makes no contribution to society?

So are we also not valuable to them because we don't contribute to their society?

Researching across many different ideologies and postures on the internet, about this

theme, either with videos or essays I have come to the conclusion that we should not

categorize or judge life in any way because as living creatures we all have equal value,

every single creature is filled with the same amount of life, so no life is worth more than the

other, many philosophers like Paul Taylor meandered about this argument and wrote many

postures which holistically explain how a human is important to another human because they

are based with human criteria, and for a species, another of his species may be important if it

is judged with the criteria of another faction (like an ant). For example: If I want to have a

wife, I want her to have kids(this is the criteria she is “valued” on), and if she can give me

kids, she is important to me but for an ant, this is not relevant as it doesn't interfere with her,

and for an ant, for example, the ant cares for her queen as she sustains their race by giving

birth to other ants but for me, this is not relevant as it's not my race neither my queen.

Why is it thought that a life value exists, why do we think my life is worth less than

Elon Musk’s life, for example? and if that is the case are we then inferior to Elon Musk like

an ant to a human? Life should not have value to us as living creatures, it happens for

example in any faction they create hierarchies, for example, in a group of humans a person

who contributes more is, therefore, more important than the one who doesn't, but that still

doesn't mean that we should kill a person who is thought to be less valuable. A person who
couldn't work in a nazi society was killed because of his lack of contribution, so he was

considered useless.

“T4 Euthanasia Program, Nazi German effort—framed as a euthanasia program—to

kill incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people.

Adolf Hitler initiated the program in 1939, and, while it was officially discontinued in 1941,

killings continued covertly until the military defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.”

So are we supposed to take this idea to the extreme, care the same for a baby as a

mosquito, in that case, obviously not, we are humans and are made to take care of our own,

but if we reverse the roles we don't care for a mosquito baby, why would they care about

ours, so what worth are you, particularly, to any mosquito? Nothing. You aren't a part of the

mosquito’s world. This is called Individualistic biocentrism, and the posture stands that:

“all life deserves equal moral consideration or has equal moral standing.” biocentrism | ethics.

(2022). Retrieved 20 May 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/biocentrism

“In this paper I defend the virtue of reverence for life, providing a particular understanding of

biocentric individualism. Those who espouse biocentric individualism claim that all living

things have at least some intrinsic moral value when they are alive. In other words, the claim

is that all living things (even bacteria, ants, and grass) have some moral status –not because

they are beautiful, or because they are helpful to humans, but simply in virtue of being alive.”

https://philarchive.org/archive/KAWRFL
 This does not mean we should have absurdly demanding positions, like not moving

because you kill bacteria, as this idea has evolved throughout the centuries from the

Buddhists to Christians and the Romantic movement in the 18th and 19th centuries, criteria

were applied to this movement to make this idea less extreme, in which the “Defenders of

animal rights cited characteristics such as having interests, sentience, being conscious, and

being the subject of a life as the most appropriate criteria for moral standing.”

What rules then should we follow to be in harmony with this posture, how should we not

interfere with living creatures.

“As a normative theory, biocentrism has practical implications for human behavior. The good

of all living beings creates responsibilities on the part of human beings, summarized in the

four basic duties of biocentric ethics: non-maleficence, noninterference, fidelity, and

restitutive justice. The duty of nonmaleficence requires that no harm be done to living

beings, although it does not commit human beings to the positive duties of preventing harm

from happening or of aiding in attaining the good. The duty of noninterference requires not

interfering with an organism’s pursuit of its own goals. The duty of fidelity requires not

manipulating, deceiving, or otherwise using living beings as mere means to human ends. The

duty of restitutive justice requires that humans make restitution to living beings when they

have been harmed by human activity.”

biocentrism - Challenges. (2022). Retrieved 20 May 2022, from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/biocentrism/Challenges

As aristotle mentioned in the ideology of virtue ethics, for a man to have a virtuous

life, he has to accomplish a balance within this ethics, which is clear that are broken when not
respecting an animals life, for example if a person kills an animal because of pleasure, anger,

buffoonery or for Malicious enjoyment, he would be breaking this balance by leaning into

one of this sides of excess or deficiency, so for aristotle killing animals and not respecting

their life would surely be against aristotle’s ideologies and in favor of biocentrism.

As Aristotle also said, “animals that live politically are those that have any kind of

activity in common, which is not true of all gregarious animals. of this sort are: man, bee,

wasp and crane”. We can see how Aristotle values every life and says that a political animal

is a social creature with the power of speech and moral reasoning. “Bees, ants, and humans

are, as Aristotle saw, highly social creatures whose sociability leads to the production of

goods that are common to and shared by the members of a defined community.” It can be

seen that Aristotle values every life of animals that contribute to their society specially ants

and bees which relates to the belief of biocentrism.

The normatives heard before are based on religious, benevolent and philosophical

perspectives, which sustains that all living creatures should be treated with respect and

justice, because of the fact that they are alive. Another argument that sustains this posture is

that as one of the thousands of species that habitat this planet we are part of a giant ecosystem

in which we depend on others and others depend on us, so it can't be fair to say for example,

that we are more important than bees because even if we disparage them, they pollinate our

world which makes us live, without bees we wouldn't be alive.

We can conclude then that by all means, life should be respected and preserved,

because of the fact that life has a value that no other thing can match, as humans we should
respect and understand that we are one in millions of living creatures and all are worth the

same with the perspective of a living creature.