Are You Worth More Than a Tree? Dennis Prager Response

hey guys it's cosmic skeptic and I recently found a video by the YouTube channel Prager University which you're likely have heard of I've responded to them in the past arguing that if you reject judeo-christian values and you're committed to believing that human beings have the same moral worth as a tree okay perhaps not the best overview but I'm not exaggerating this video is presented by Dennis Prager himself and was practically begging for a response and well I'm happy to oblige Prager thinks that if you throw off judeo-christian values and support secularism then you have to devalue the moral worth of humans to the level of other animals an idea he finds horrifying this whole video is just absurd so let's take it from the top are you more valuable than a dog or a cat okay I want to begin by being absolutely clear yes I think that human beings have more moral worth than non-human animals I might be wrong about this but it's what I believe many people Prager included it seems have a misconception that vegans like myself or even just secularists all those who recognize that human beings are just animals are committed to the belief that human beings have the same moral worth as a dog or a cat or any other animal this simply isn't true as a vegan I think that a pig has enough moral worth not to kill and eat it but that doesn't mean that I think it's life is worth the same as my life just that it's life is not worth the same as my taste buds but Prager is making a wider point not just about vegans but about secularism in general so we'll see what else he has to say but first just listen to this are you more valuable than a dog or a cat or for that matter a tree Praeger is totally caricaturing even veganism and environmentalism let alone simple secularism just because people have begun to care about the environment doesn't mean they think trees are as valuable as human lives those who wish to save trees almost invariably do so because they want to prevent harm to the environment but it only matters if the environment is ruined because creatures like us will suffer not because the trees will to respond in the briefest possible terms to Prague as assertion that people are beginning to vow all animals the same amount consider this quote from Peter Singer The Godfather of the modern animal rights movement conclude then that a rejection of speciesism does not imply that all lives are of equal worth it just means that they're worth more than we thought before one of the biggest differences between judeo-christian values and secular values concerns this very issue the worth of the human being according to the judeo-christian value system human beings are infinitely valuable I suppose that doesn't include those humans whom the Old Testament permits you to take as slaves or as sex slaves all those who commit the death deserving sins of homosexuality or blasphemy I'm sorry maybe that was cheap of me but not as cheap as suggesting that I think that humans have the same moral worth as a tree so perhaps we're even on the other hand secular humanism devalues the worth of humans okay there are so many things wrong with this that it's difficult to know where to begin firstly what on earth are secular values secular simply means not connected with religious or spiritual matters so by secular values mr. Prager do you mean every single value system that isn't religious I've spoken myself about secular values in the past by which I simply refer to the ability to have values without religion but there isn't some single set of values that can be called secular values that's internally consistent it's a category of values not some specific set it would be similar to me describing religious values as though Islamic values Christian values and Buddhist values all agree on everything of course there are some things they agree on so we might use the term religious values when describing these but to suggest that all secularists devalue humans to have the same moral worth as animals is a total misrepresentation and completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of secular individuals are not vegan or vegetarian and many don't even care about the environment at all let alone as much as they value or the humans I mean just look at the image on the screen it's being suggested that secular values equate human beings with what is that a bird a fish a gecko and a tree I mean if you looked up the definition of a straw man fallacy you wouldn't be mislead by having this image as an example does dennis prager really think that those who hold secular values hold that a human being has as much moral worth as a tree I can't imagine so but the picture says otherwise so presuming he's not intentionally lying it seems the only explanation is he's arguing this is what a secularist should be committed to believing so let's hear why as ironic as it may sound the God based judeo-christian value system renders humans infinitely more valuable than any humanistic value system this is palpably untrue of course a religion like Christianity or Judaism planes to purport that humans are infinitely valuable but humanists place humans at the very center of their value system hence the name humanism and religion doesn't placing God at the center instead now the religious believe that because their God is an infinite being they have more to offer humans than humanists do but humanists simply see this as untrue since they don't believe in an infinite God they say we think the religious overestimate the nature of the universe but we value humans as highly as we think it's possible to value anything which the religious do not place in God in this spot instead in other words relatively speaking you could say that humanists value humans more than the religious since they place mankind at the very center of their value system whereas the religious don't the reason is simple if there is no God human beings are only material beings true and therefore not worth anything beyond the matter of which they are composed false this assertion commits what's called the fallacy of composition Prager is saying that because matter isn't worth much on its own things made of matter can't be worth much either but this would be like saying that since a poem is made of nothing more than words and punctuation arranged in a particular order any poem is only worth as much as a comma or the letter P is but a poem is worth much more than that which it's composed of and so are human beings but in the judeo-christian system human beings are created in the image of God meaning that human lie is sacred right even if we are made in the image of God whatever that even means since nobody seems to be able to provide a precise definition we'd still be made of matter the problem Prager mentioned a second ago about us being material beings as if that even is a problem would still persist to avoid this you have to posit that something exists within us that isn't made of matter and has intrinsic worth of its own accord before it's placed within us ah well maybe this is what a soul is but why give a soul to humans and not to a rock or tree if humans are truly worth nothing as solely material beings as Prager is suggesting it must have been a totally arbitrary choice where the God gave us all to us humans or gave it to apples or trees or metal ores instead but if there is some reason to favor giving us all to a human rather than a rock that human must have some higher value than the rock before it gets a soul whilst both are still just material beings but where can such value come from if material beings are only worth the matter they're made up of it doesn't add up unless of course we accept that things can be valuable despite only being material in other words we are either created in the image of carbon atoms and therefore not worth much more than carbon or we are created in the image of God and therefore infinitely valuable no just as being created in the image of God doesn't make us gods and doesn't give us the same value and powers as God has being made of carbon atoms doesn't make us nothing more than carbon with the same value and powers as an individual carbon atom again a sonata is worth more than the musical notes it's made up of despite being made of nothing other than musical notes a person is worth more than the matter he's made of despite being made of nothing other than matter our secular post judeo-christian society has rendered human beings less significant than at any time in Western history I'm sorry who do you think had more care for the worth of human beings a modern humanist or a Christian slave trader in the 18th century to suggest that modern secular societies value human beings less than our ancestors or even existing religious regimes who wage religious aughter divinely-inspired invasions and annexations and justify human slavery is beyond offensive and based on a total falsehood Praeger is clearly basing his hypothesis that secularists devalue human life on the fact that they care about non-human animals as we'll see but this isn't a lowering of the worth of humans it's a raising of the worth of nonhumans those of us modern secularists who do count non-human animals as part of our moral community still value humans just as much as we did before we simply want to afford the same considerations to other animals now to first the secular denial that human beings are created in God's image has led to humans increasingly being equated with animals that's probably because human beings are animals mr. Prager I hope this doesn't come as a surprise that's why over the course of 30 years of asking high school and college students if they would first try to save their dog or a stranger two-thirds have always voted against the person okay clearly clearly this is not about whether students value dogs or humans more it's about their personal relationship with the individual animals if these students have to choose between saving their beloved dog or their beloved sibling they choose to sibling the fact that in the example Prager is presenting the students love the dog but don't even know who the stranger is completely distorts the results no serious researcher would consider this comparison a reliable way to test people's relative value of dogs and humans in general to illustrate imagine I asked mr. Prager a similar question if your beloved daughter was drowning and next to her five men you've never met were also drowning who would you save most people would probably save their daughter a hat this clearly means that they value women more than they value men because the daughter is female and the strangers are male except no it doesn't of course you save the daughter because it's your daughter not because she's a girl these students saved the dog because it's their dog not because it's a dog they either don't know what they would do or they actually vote for the dog many adults now vote similarly why there are two reasons one is that with the denial of the authority of higher values such as religious teachings people increasingly make moral decisions on the basis of how they feel and since just about everybody feels more for their dog than for a stranger many people simply choose the dog yeah just like how you feel more for your daughter than for five strangers I could say that this means you don't value human life since saving the strangers would be better for more humans and so saving your daughter indicates that you don't care about humans but this would be a completely dishonest way to explain your behavior and besides asking people about what they would do in any given situation is totally irrelevant to the question of what they feel they should do the other reason is that once you get rid of judeo-christian values there's no reason for elevating human worth over that of an animal again we are animals you mean elevating human worth over that of other animals and yes yes there is reason to do this just as we morally value certain humans over other humans when necessity requires that we value certain species over other species secular values are almost always predicated on experiences of pleasure and pain which all animals share to varying degrees it's these degrees that allow us to determine which species we value most there there's one reason for you mr. Prager one reason among many and it's a simple and popular one don't try to tell me that just because you don't agree with such reasons such reasons don't exist but also consider this Prager is basing this argument on the fact that his religion elevates all humans above other animals morally speaking and that this means that other animals are worth nothing more than the material they're made out of okay tell me mr. Prager do you value dogs and more than you value cockroaches if so why if the only way we can value humans over dogs is because humans are made in the image of God how can we value dogs over other animals or insects or even inanimate objects since dogs aren't made in the image of God and adjust as material as these other things in fact scratch that do you value dogs at all do you think they have any moral worth presumably you do I can't imagine you'd be in favor of cruelty against dogs for instance but what is this value based on as I say dogs aren't made in the image of God so where does their value come from Oh Oh can animals have worth that derives from something other than being made in the image of God even if they're just material beings well if you're allowed to do that for dogs mr. Prager I'm allowed to do it for humans thank you very much that's why people are strange some judeo-christian values including many Jews and Christians support programs such as Holocaust on your plate okay listen to the wording here many people he says agree with this campaign which people how many what's the support based on all or are you just throwing this out there mr. Prager in the hope that no one will question it look I've met a great number of secularists who are appalled by the comparison of factory farming to the Holocaust and I've met a great number who think it's an accurate comparison show me your data on how significant these ideas have actually been Holocaust on your plate is a campaign developed by the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals PETA that teaches that there is no difference between the barbecuing of chickens in America and the burning of Jews in the Holocaust oh come on firstly you know it wasn't just Jews who died in the Holocaust don't you I'd expect someone so ostensibly caring and sensitive about this period of history to respect the memory of everyone who died there not just the Jews and like we spoke about before Peter was making a comparison not an equation if your moral system is based upon suffering and sentience like miners you may well be logically committed to saying that the modern animal industry is worse than the Holocaust or maybe you think that's an appalling idea but whether it is worse or much worse or better or much better we can recognize that both are totally wrong even if to varying degrees and the future societies will consider both in the same light after all the definition of Holocaust is destruction or slaughter on a mass scale this is exactly what happens in factory farms if you don't like this if you don't like the fact that by definition the word Holocaust can apply to factory farming maybe you've got a problem with factory farming maybe you do value non-human animals after all no difference between the barbecuing of chickens in America and the burning of Jews in the Holocaust why because a human and a chicken are of equal worth no I mean seriously no you don't have to say that humans are worth the same as chickens to be against the abuse of both species they shouldn't need explaining also let's take a look at the actual Holocaust on your plate campaign during the 7 years between 1938 and 1945 12 million people perished in the Holocaust the same number of animals is killed every four hours for food in the US alone we can say that a nonhuman animal is worth less than a human whilst simultaneously recognizing that the point of this particular campaign is to highlight the sheer number of non-human animals that are suffering on factory farms and that this is what makes the comparison powerful also note how the campaign reminds people of the different reasons for the slaughter 12 million people died in a world war where as a hundred and fifty million non-human animals are killed every day for nothing more than taste pleasure even if we accept that factory farm animals have minimal moral worth and far less than any human the point to take away from this campaign is that our taste buds have even less so - in a notorious tucson arizona case a woman screamed two firefighters that her three babies were in the burning house thinking that the woman's children were trapped inside the firefighters risked their lives to save the woman's three cats Oh so some firefighters made a mistake based on a frantic woman whose house was on fire not clearly expressing herself and referring to her pets as babies as a great many pet owners do this must be indicative of modern secular societies devaluing human Worth give me a break if you think these two examples are either just the erratic the Dark Stranger question or extreme the Tucson mother of cats here's an issue that is neither theoretical nor extreme more and more people believe as PETA does that even if it would lead to a cure for cancer or AIDS it would be wrong to experiment on animals in fact many animal rights advocates believe that even to save a human life it would be wrong to kill a pig to obtain a heart valve again this is disingenuous just like before we have no numbers to work with no stats what evidence do you have that this is a popular view or even that you've understood the view correctly I'm a secular person and I believe that if experimenting on an animal were going to lead to a cure to cancer that we would be justified in doing so so what's your point I'll tell you my point animal testing doesn't lead to such medical breakthroughs that's why I'm against it look I don't say that it's not worth it because animals are worth the same as humans I say it's not worth it because animals deserve more than torture for useless experiments also consider the following commenting on how most animal testing is totally fruitless here's Peter Singer again either the animal is not like us in which case there is no reason for performing the experiment or else the animal is like us in which case we ought not to perform on the animal and experiment that would be considered outrageous if performed on one of us the 20th century showed vividly what happens to human worth when judeo-christian values are abandoned Nazi Germany and the various communist regimes all rejected judeo-christian values and ended up slaughtering the largest number of people in human history oh please how many times are we going to have to hear that communism proves how evil secularism is firstly the USSR was not secular like I said before secular means not connected with religious or spiritual matters enforcing atheism and murdering religious officials which the Communists did is definitely an involvement in religious and spiritual matters point to communism at least the kind referred to by Prager may indeed necessar atheism but atheism doesn't necessitate communism and even if it did an atheist state is not a secular state and Prager is arguing that it's secular values that are to blame for this disregard of human life that he seems to be observing 0.3 Nazism has a close connection to Christianity and specifically Roman Catholicism Hitler was quite possibly lying when he called himself a Roman Catholic we'll never know for sure but those men who were actually doing his killing for him holding guns on the front lines and outside of torture chambers were Christians how about I cut you a deal mr. Prager I won't use this logic to suggest that Christianity is responsible for Nazism if you stop using it to suggest that secularism which you've confused for atheism anyway is responsible for communism for Nazism Jews and members of other non-aryan groups were declared worthless and murdered in the millions for communists human worth was determined solely by communist parties which murdered tens of millions of people only by rejecting judeo-christian values could Nazis declare Jews Slavs and others subhuman and only by rejecting judeo-christian values could communist regimes slaughter those they called class enemies individual human life meant nothing really I mean really only by rejecting judeo-christian values can array gene be anti-semitic or adopt another form of racism or class oppression just just let the absurdity of that suggestion and the historical examples of religious anti-semitism and other bigotry ring between your ears for a moment again I'll remind you that even if Hitler was secretly an atheist he used used Christian values to support his ideals he didn't abandon them they were one of the very things that helped him sell his ideology but look don't take my word for it take Hitler's who said in volume 1 chapter 2 of mine Kampf that he believed he was acting in accordance with the will of the almighty creator meanwhile human slavery was abolished only in the judeo-christian world well fantastic I'm so glad that slavery was abolished in societies that believed in a religion that was once used to justify the very slave trade being abolished once they began to move past biblical literalism and enter an age of secular enlightenment it was high time they made up for this moral disgrace and of course for nearly all those who reject judeo-christian values the human fetus is worthless if its mother deems it so well this is obviously a totally disconnected issue there are secularists who are pro-life and secularists who are pro-choice and oftentimes those who are pro-choice don't devalue the life of a fetus they simply don't believe that it is a life at least not yet and maybe they're wrong about that that's a separate debate but to say that they're motivated to their views by a devaluing of human worth is disingenuous at best finally there is an increasingly vocal part of the environmentalist movement that also denigrates human worth for these individuals the human being is not infinitely precious trees and rivers and mountains are such people still value humans even if they value the environment - again this is a raising of the worth of the environment not a lowering of the worth of humans also remember how you said earlier that if things are only material then they can't have infinite value if these tree people are materialists as you were suggesting earlier then since both trees and human beings are material things they can't think the environment is infinitely valuable as you say since they're made of the same mere matter as human beings so you're either right about their materialism in which case you're wrong about how much they care for the environment or you're right about how much they care for the environment and wrong about them being materialists make your mind up oh don't I really don't care just don't make another video until you've done so if only for the sake of the bags under my eyes so are you more valuable than a dog or a cat or a tree that depends on your value system I'm Dennis Prager Wow what take how you value things get this depends on your value system thanks to dennis prager as always for charitably imparting his unparalleled wisdom to us delusional secularists and thanks as always to you of course dear viewer for sticking with me through this shambles if you want to help me keep it up then you can consider supporting me on patreon where I've begun doing private live streams and I keep up communication with supporters of the channel or you can share my videos with your friends which is equally appreciated and helpful to those who are already supporting the channel in either of these ways you have my eternal gratitude or at least as eternal as it can be from an atheist - Alex O'Connor or cosmic skeptic you can find me on social media here don't forget to subscribe thank you for watching and I'll see you in the next one

Channel: CosmicSkeptic

Views: 149,355

Rating: 4.8611989 out of 5

Keywords: Alex O'Connor, cosmic, skeptic, cosmicskeptic, atheism, prager, prageru, animals, vegan, religion, secularism, Dennis Prager, animal rights, philosophy

Id: 9wRknbX8d-M

Length: 25min 23sec (1523 seconds)

Published: Wed Aug 21 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/Commentariat1]

Dennis meets Goliath :)