You Don’t Need God to be Good

What Does It Mean To Be Moral?

Phrased another way, ‘what criteria does one have to meet in order to be a good person?’

The dictionary defines morality as ‘those principles concerned with the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour’.

It goes on to explain that being moral is ‘the act of holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct’.

Yet, how does one truly know that they are a moral person, or even that they tend to act morally in any given situation?

This is a personal development site, primarily, and I don’t think that a lengthy philosophical analysis of morality will serve this post’s purpose.

I will also admit that this is my first foray into this topic and, although I find it incredibly interesting, my expertise on morality is in its infancy.

This article is targeted at the following audience:

1. Those who are struggling to come to terms with the fact that they can be a good person without believing in a god;
2. Those considering whether it is even possible to be moral if one does not believe in a god; and
3. Those who accept that it is, in fact, possible to live a morally virtuous life sans the supernatural, but don’t quite know how they can go about achieving this.

Although this is not exclusively aimed at atheists grappling with the question of morality, I do intend on issuing a diatribe against religion and, hopefully through the arguments I present herein, you can start to acknowledge your own internal moral worth; that, as a moral agent, you should seriously consider what you believe, whether what you believe is right and then align your actions to conform with those beliefs; and, ultimately, realise that, not only do you not need to fear some supernatural sky-daddy to be a good person, but to do so likely means you will act in accordance with morally questionable beliefs.

The Mampara’s Guide to Morality

I’m sorry for including South African slang here, but I found this subheading too funny to change.

It also reflects my opinion on religion’s pathetic attempt to not only define morality, but also try claim dominion over the concept entirely.

Any reference to religion or theism or god herein is primarily directed at the Abrahamic religions, with Christianity and Islam leading the pack as far as popularity contests are concerned. They also just so happen to be the most morally abhorrent religions, in my honest opinion.

Seriously, though, what useful, valuable or intellectual contribution has religion made towards the advancement of our understanding of morality?

Hell, we can’t even look to religion for the consistent application of what is said to be the last word on morality, handed down by god him… er, itself.

The theist is quick to ask the atheist: “But, without G-d, where do you get your morality from?” which is usually followed by the rather condescending suggestion that, without a god to guide the atheist, there is nothing to stop them from going around raping, torturing and killing everyone they meet.

Besides for the impressive levels of irony on display, as their god has both been responsible for, as well as used in the justification of, egregious abuses of humanity throughout history and even to this day, it’s quite telling that, but for their imaginary friend in the sky, they would be engaging in a whole host of atrocious deeds.

The problem with theism and morality is multifaceted.

You see, their god, by definition, is good. God can do no wrong and anything it declares is just.

If their god commands them to kill their first-born then, regardless of the fact that scripture has decreed murder to be a sin, the act of killing their child becomes the moral thing to do under the circumstances.

Theists attempt to get around this point by arguing that their god would never make such a request of them… yet it has in the past (†cough† Abraham †cough†) and many, to this day, justify any number of weird and wacky things by claiming ‘God told me to do it’.

I love how modern-day theists are quick to discredit their peers by putting forward such gems as ’that person is genuinely certifiable’, or ‘they’re not a true (Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.)’, or ‘they were fooled by Satan into committing such an evil act’.

Could it be that god doesn’t communicate with his flock in such a public fashion anymore because we are no longer willing to so easily entertain bullshit as we once were? Something to think about, I guess.

So, right off the bat, religious morality is highly contextual and thus makes it an unreliable source of morality (and I’ll explain why further below).

If scripture is to be believed (spoiler: it really isn’t), then this god has, based on what it demands of its own people, done some terrible, really horrible, truly awful things.

But this god is the ‘do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do’ kind of being.

Which would be despicable in and of itself but, not only does this god do atrocious things, it apparently demands disgusting behaviour from its following.

It’s really absurd that we should get our morality from something that:

1. Is all powerful, yet allows the perpetuation of the worst humanity has to offer;
2. Takes no responsibility for evil in this world — pointing to Satan as the arbiter of same — yet, but for this god, Satan wouldn’t exist; ergo, evil wouldn’t exist;
3. Places its creations in a sick game of free-will, gets involved only when ‘it feels like it’ and does all of this knowing full well the outcome; and
4. Not only allows for atrocities to be committed in its name, stands by watching while the horror unfolds and only does ‘something’ when it deems fit… but, when it finally does get involved, it is often the perpetrator of such heinous cruelty that one would be forgiven for confusing god for evil itself.

There is absolutely no logic, rationality or justification behind this god’s so-called morality that any sane adult in a civilised society could reasonably be expected to extract.

But, this makes a whole lot more sense when you realise that ‘God’s morality’ is really just a collection of journal entries made by a selection of incoherent, ignorant and brutish authors handing down orders they claim to have received from a supernatural entity possessing unrealistic expectations of humanity. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt and not immediately presuming insanity, their moral pronouncements are clearly based, at best, on their severely limited comprehension of the workings of the world or, at worst, their corrupt desire to control it through fear and illiteracy.

Because, when God gets involved, anything goes… and compliance is way easier when we don’t demand it ourselves, but get our god to demand it for us.

If the carrot of having our every desire granted in the afterlife by living a virtuous life in the eyes of some god isn’t enough, don’t worry, the stick of eternal damnation should do the trick.

These words alone are enough to condemn me to an eternity of hellfire, which should serve as sufficient indication of the absurdity of god’s morality.

Should we really look to this entity for moral guidance when it thinks that making someone suffer and scream and burn and choke FOREVER AND EVER until the end of time is a fair punishment for finite crimes committed by imperfect beings?

Could eternal torture ever be justified? Think about this very carefully.

We can’t even comprehend eternity, and now we must sit there for something as trivial as not being convinced of God’s existence because there is poor evidence to support this claim?

Something’s extremely fishy about all of this!

As Christopher Hitchens’ aptly titled bestseller so neatly puts it: God, most certainly, is not great — at least not the one depicted in any existing religion. #SorryNotSorry

Morality, Medicine & Legislation

I believe that morality is a goal that society should aim for and work towards achieving.

Then we, as individuals, should adopt and implement the thoughts, beliefs, principles and actions which are necessarily required in order to achieve that goal.

It’s difficult to imagine that a rational adult would challenge the notion that optimal health is a necessary and good thing for society.

And, I think we can all agree that the goal of good health is to eliminate or prevent, as far as is possible, all manner of physical and mental illness as well as improve, support and maintain, as far as is possible, wellness, vitality and strength, of both body and mind, for as long as we are alive.

Therefore, if the goal of health is as described above, then it follows that we should take the necessary steps which would likely lead to us achieving those ends (considering the limits of medicine and the medical field). This would include both partaking in and/or refraining from certain lifestyle choices.

We all know that the activities of drinking, smoking, taking dangerous drugs, eating fast food, engaging in risky behaviour and refusing medication designed to heal us (among others) does not align with our health goal. So, if we ever do these things, we also know that this necessarily means we aren’t being healthy or, rather, we are acting in opposition to a healthy lifestyle.

A civilised society, for the most part, attempts to intervene as little as possible regarding decisions we make in terms of our own health, but has taken steps to legally enforce what actions we are allowed to take, if such actions are likely to impact the health of those around us. Take legislation relating to smoking, as an example.

And just as health is a consideration legislators take into account when enacting rules and laws governing a country and its people, so it is with morality — a concept arguably more complex and complicated than health when it comes to practical application.

What I am getting at — and this will become important as we delve further into this topic — is that the law is as much concerned about health as it is about morality… or a whole number of issues, for that matter. Just because the law deals with a particular aspect of health does not make it an authority on how people should act in all contexts, on all occasions, if they want to be deemed healthy. Likewise, just because a law pronounces certain behaviour illegal, which behaviour many would also consider immoral, does not make it an authority on how people should act in all contexts, on all occasions, if they want to be deemed ethical.

Sure, the law integrates many things, with health and morality being two notable considerations, but the law encompasses a combination of many various aspects of life and attempts to enforce them in the most practical way possible.

The law is a necessarily human endeavour which aims to coordinate society for the benefit of all people governed by it, but sometimes it gets things wrong or fails to consider crucial components, and is therefore forced to evolve with shifting public policy.

In other words, we turn to the law when we would like to determine which conduct is permissible within a particular place at a particular time, and we turn to medicine to determine which behaviour is good for one’s health, but to where can we turn to determine which actions are right or wrong — good or bad — for all people, at all times, throughout history?

Health and morality are very similar; for one, both are quite unlike law in many ways. For instance, something that is now illegal might have once been legal (and vice versa), but we can’t say that, since it is now legal / illegal, it has always been legal / illegal. Yes, the law evolves, but it is a creature of time and place.

We can only look across the world or back at history and comment on how laws are different or have changed but, whereas laws are not timeless and universal, health and morality are.

We dictate the law, whereas only our understanding of health and morality changes. This is because the law is not a goal, it is society’s best effort to maintain order and ensure justice is served in the most practicable way possible.

What is considered healthy / unhealthy now has always been that way. What is considered moral / immoral now has always been that way. Our knowledge may change — hopefully improving as humanity advances — but morality and health are objective facts which remain the same regardless of time or location, and it is our responsibility to figure out what is the best way to be good or do the right thing or maximise our health.

As I mentioned above, morality is goal-focused; that, given the fact we value a world which is fair, just, compassionate, kind or any number of ‘good’ attributes we could imagine a society in which we would like to live should uphold, then we ought to live our lives in accordance with those attributes and ought not live in accordance with the antithesis of those attributes.

If the grand total of ‘good’ we do significantly outweighs the grand total of ‘bad’ we do, then we can be said to be moral people.

How societies currently define ‘good’ and ‘bad’ may differ from place to place, but I think individuals can fairly easily reason their way into what a moral world would look like, even though moral-perfection is a practical impossibility, and do what they can to ensure that their actions align accordingly.

As our understanding of morality improves — what is actually ‘good’ and ‘bad’ — we can merely adjust our course and behave with reference to our developed insight.

There’s no magic pill here and, as I said, this is not an exercise in moral philosophy and I most certainly am not an expert in this matter, but I tend to lean towards morality being an objective concept. For another perspective on morality, perhaps check out CosmicSkeptic’s take on why morality is subjective, below:

Competing Rights & Blame-
worthiness

Here’s where the law may have something to say about morality.

Rights are essentially a recognition, in law, that we are all entitled to certain freedoms, privileges and benefits.

In a civilised, democratic society, Rights are codified and usually form part of a country’s constitution.

Not all rights are absolute, however, and even inalienable rights can be limited or temporarily suspended under certain circumstances.

This is where the issue of competing rights comes into the picture.

Briefly, competing Rights are two or more Rights that come into conflict with one another, under a particular set of circumstances, in such a way that necessitates one to be upheld in violation of the others.

An example of this is clearly demonstrated within the context of rape. Our Freedoms are limited by the potential or actual harm of our conduct together with other considerations that need to be had in any given situation.

One’s Freedom of Religion, for instance, is extensively limited by laws concerning equality, dignity, expression, slavery, life, etc.

I’m not sure where I heard this, but the following quote says it all:

One’s right to swing their fist is extinguished the moment it meets with the person of another.

Placed in the context of morality, what can we learn from the concept of Competing Rights?

We don’t live in isolation and our actions affect the lives of those around us. Our choices have consequences and, although we should be allowed the freedom to live our lives as we so desire, we need to determine whether the overall benefit of an action outweighs and justifies the ultimate harm it could cause.

Remember: morality is goal focussed. So, would you agree that intent and reasonableness should also be factors to consider?

As with in law, we should only hold others morally responsible where they acted — or omitted to act — either purposefully or in instances they should have known better.

I suppose context is key, and we can only blame somebody if a reasonable person in the same set of circumstance would have, and could have, acted differently.

Moral Worth vs Moral Agency

Another factor we need to address is who should receive moral consideration and who should be held morally accountable?

Again, let us be practical and logical in our determination and application of morality, keeping in mind that this will require figuring out the standards against which proper conduct should be governed.

Something has moral worth if it possesses a trait deemed important or significant enough to warrant consideration before a course of action, affecting its interests, is taken.

Should we consider the pencil before we sharpen it? Should we consider the grass before we stand on it? Should we consider the water before we drink it?

Moral worth means that something has inherent value and deserves ethical treatment by anything that possesses moral agency.

Something has moral agency if it is capable of / has the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour and act accordingly in a given set of circumstances.

If something cannot understand morality or act morally, for whatever reason, then it, likewise, cannot be considered a moral agent.

Moral agents should always act in accordance with morality and incur a duty to treat all those with moral worth ethically.

I think it is fair to say that, although not everything with moral worth also has moral agency, everything with moral agency will, necessarily, have moral worth.

However, how do we go about allocating moral agency and moral worth?

An Incomplete Moral Framework

It’s time we put all the pieces together.

It seems to be a popular opinion, that the goal of secular morality can be found within the context of wellbeing.

Would you agree that a moral act is one which improves wellbeing and/or reduces unnecessary suffering?

And, by way of extension, could we say that a person is moral if their choices are consistently aligned with the moral framework outlined above?

Humanism places morality in a human context and dictates how humans should treat one another.

At face value, it appears Secular Humanism also prioritises wellbeing as the ultimate goal of morality: we should aim to not cause unnecessary harm to those around us; actively attempt to reduce suffering when we are in a position to do so; take care of those who cannot care for themselves; try to help others and add value to their lives whenever practicably possible; be compassionate, empathetic, kind and treat others how we would like others to treat us (for the most part).

A life philosophy I like to call the ‘Don’t Be a Cunt!‘ rule.

But is the humanist stance on morality enough? Could we perhaps reduce it to a system that could be consistently applied in all contexts to ensure the most practicably beneficial outcome is reached, no matter what?

If we take wellbeing as the primary goal morality seeks to uphold, then anything capable of experiencing happiness, pleasure, pain and suffering — at the very least — should be granted moral worth.

Therefore, anything that is sentient — is conscious, has self-awareness and is capable of feeling pleasure and pain — should be granted moral worth.

There is a wealth of science on the issue of sentience, and it has been overwhelmingly shown that both human and non-human animals are sentient.

We can draw inspiration from Secular Humanism or expand it to include all sentient life, a task which cannot be undertaken when using religion as our basis for morality.

I’m sure you could apply extensive mental acrobatics to the problem, if you were adamant to align your religion with the ethical treatment of all sentient creatures.

However, theism operates through the fundamental assertion that human beings are, quite literally, god’s gift to Earth — as the video below, which attempts to discredit secular morality, will show ¹:

Theism asserts that we are all made in ‘god’s’ image, that we are the only earthly beings with a soul and that whatever god you have chosen to follow has put every other creature on earth with us to do with as we please.

As Sam Harris addresses in his book, The Moral Landscape, religion claims authority over ‘the moral law’ (a set of morals handed down by god).

As Harris, himself, states: “although no other species can match us for altruism, none can match us for sadistic cruelty either.“

I mean, theists are the same people who reject the scientific fact of evolution and maintain that humans (together with everything else on earth) have existed in their present form for thousands of years (i.e., since the beginning of time).

So, if we believe that everything has been placed here for our benefit, and we are willing to reject scientific consensus that sentient life can experience pain and suffering like we do, what hope in holy hell do animals have against the horrific cruelty we are willing to inflict upon them.

There is no logic within theistic morality; only tradition, only ‘the way it has always been done‘, only ‘god says so, therefore…’. No questioning or enquiry. No need for evidence or science. In fact, if the evidence and science conflict with ‘god’s inconsistent truth‘, then it simply must be rejected.

As I explain in my post on abortion, theists don’t arrive at moral positions by way of logical reasoning. All they really want is to leverage control over others and build an army of mindless zombies who can successfully proliferate the god-virus. 

Morality ‘passed down’ is not moral at all; it is a stain on the annals of history and the only thing theism can teach us is, not morality or ethics — not by a long shot —, but how much we did not know during those times, what mistakes our ancestor made back in the day and how far we have come since the biblical era of our illiterate cousins.

Consequences of Immoral behaviour

Whereas the law governs the behaviour of a society, morality is still quite a personal thing; a sort of tacitly accepted code of conduct all people should just naturally adopt into their own lives as our collective understanding of the concept grows.

And, yes, it probably should be incorporated into statute so that people can legally be held accountable for their immoral behaviour, but it is important that people understand what it means to be moral and then, out of their own volition, act in accordance with that understanding.

There may not always be real-world or direct consequences for immoral behaviour, which is what makes those who act ethically all the more virtuous.

It is so much more empowering to independently adopt, and live in accordance with, high moral standards than to have them thrust upon us.

Think about it, can you really be moral if it’s not a personal choice?

I think the natural consequence of immoral behaviour is a necessarily societal one. As our collective understanding of what is moral and what is immoral improves, those who act immorally will be regarded as such in the eyes of those who don’t.

Therefore, societal pressure (and the fear of social ostracism) should be the single greatest consequence of immoral behaviour.

This is another reason why religion and law are no real authorities on morality… because, through a system of reward and punishment, people are simply coerced into certain conduct instead of choosing to do the right thing themselves.

(Side note: at least the law doesn’t claim to be anything more than the product of human intellect. Even where the law falls short, it can be reasonably justified and supported, and doesn’t suffer from an inability to reform as time moves on.)

However, I believe there is also a personal consequence for immoral behaviour.

Unless you have some sort of mental impairment, acting immorally can result in major internal anguish.

The guilt, depression, shame, anxiety, anger and remorse caused by acting against one’s moral code, doing the wrong thing or causing another harm can have severely deleterious effects on one’s mental and emotional health.

Conversely, acting in alignment with one’s moral code, doing the right thing and improving the wellbeing of another can have a significantly positive impact on one’s own wellbeing, happiness, confidence, peace and prosperity.

Just Be Good, For Goodness’ sake

Do we really need a god to tell us not to murder one another?

Do we honestly require a god to tell us not to rape, torture and kill?

Or that owning people as property is abhorrent on a fundamental level?

And discriminating against and treating people differently on the basis of reasons as arbitrary as race, gender, identity and orientation is immoral?

Is a god essential to know that mental, physical and emotional abuse is not good?

Do we need a god at all?

The thing is, God is open to all the above, given the right set of circumstances.

According to the so-called moral law:

1. Murder is wrong, unless instructed by God;
2. You can own slaves, as long as you follow God’s terms and conditions of slave ownership;
3. You can kill your neighbour for working on the sabbath;
4. You can kill your child for being unruly;
5. You can sacrifice your children if God so demands;
6. You can rape a woman, as long as you marry her…

You can do a whole great many things with God by your side and, as long as you believe in God and repent for any sins before you die, you’ve got a one-way ticket to heaven.

However, no matter what you do, if you don’t believe in God or blindly follow his every commandment or get down on your knees and beg forgiveness for, not only things you’ve said and done, but also thought and fantasised about, then you can expect an eternity of unimaginable pain and suffering.

The concept of hell alone is enough to conclude that theism is a moral atrocity and should be held accountable for the psychological trauma it has caused billions of people throughout history and even to this day.

Morality is actually a very simple and easy concept and most of us live a mostly moral life and would be, for the most part, considered moral people.

Morality isn’t about perfection, and we would do well to caution against lofty ideals, the heights of which we’d find impossible to achieve.

If we try to be one-hundred percent, the most healthy person in the world, we are setting ourselves up for ultimate failure. What does it mean to be the healthiest person? What would that require? What would that demand?

We can do our best within the constraints of resources and knowledge to be as healthy as practicably possible, but there will always be gaps we are unable to fill.

We can go for a run and quit smoking. We can add more fruit and veg to our diet and attend those AA meetings. We can do our research and act accordingly; we can do our absolute best. What we shouldn’t do is make perfection our objective or act against all logic and reason by neglecting our health entirely.

Likewise, if we try to be one-hundred percent, the most moral person in the world, we are setting ourselves up for ultimate failure. What does it mean to be the most ethical person? What would that require? What would that demand?

We can do our best within the constraints of resources and knowledge to be as moral as practicably possible, but there will always be gaps we are unable to fill.

I’d like to say that the wellbeing of sentient creatures is the most important consideration when determining whether an action is a moral one.

For instance, the science can only take us so far, and the issue of invertebrate and plant sentience is yet to be (fully) understood.

Yet, there are animals which we know, intuitively and scientifically, have sentience and, therefore, should be granted moral worth… so why do we continue to act against their best interests and attempt to justify such immoral behaviour?

Young children, the mentally ill and animals are impaired in such a way that prevents them from being moral agents, but that’s exactly why those with moral agency should be expected to treat them with a greater degree of care.

We, as moral agents, should be regarded as custodians of these vulnerable groups to make sure they are not being exploited or abused.

I think we still have to draw our own lines when it comes to morality, but where the science is conclusive on the matter of sentience, a baseline needs to be set.

In this regard, I’d like to borrow from The Vegan Society’s definition of veganism to formulate a secular moral philosophy for the twenty-first century, as follows:

All moral agents ought to adopt a way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, all sentient life — whether for food, labour, clothing, entertainment or any other purpose — by virtue of their inherent moral worth; and, by extension, only engage in that behaviour which either promotes wellbeing, minimises unnecessary harm, doesn’t diminish wellbeing and/or doesn’t promote / cause unnecessary harm.

As long as all terms are properly defined and universally accepted, I believe the above makes for a valid moral framework, in terms of which we should all live our lives.

Isn’t it obvious that we have a greater moral imperative to cease causing harm than we do to actively reduce suffering in the world?

Various thought experiments may thrust us into precarious situations where we will need to make a difficult decision and our morality will be called into question.

However, if we can apply the above moral framework to our lives, then we can still fall short of the moral standard against which we hold ourselves accountable and still lead an ethical existence.

Through the lens of logic, science and practicality, we can create a moral framework — a code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable within a civilised society — that we can improve upon as our knowledge and understanding of the world around us develops.

Religion, on the other hand, wishes to lock our morality within the confines of antiquity and demand we live our lives based on the limited and unsophisticated wisdom of our bronze-age brethren.

Civilisation has reached a point of collective understanding that one could not have even begun to imagine even a few hundred years ago…

So, why are we relying on the morality of humanity from millennia past?

We are intentionally fucking ourselves when we hold onto the belief that scripture holds the timeless moral answers which are still applicable to humanity in the twenty-first century.

It is very, very clear that, not only do we NOT need a god or gods — and especially not Yahweh or Allah — to be good people… but we desperately need to abandon the concept entirely if we ever wish to live in a world with any sort of morals at all!

Whew, we made it!

Hey there, it’s Brad again.

Just wanted to pop back in and extend a massive THANK YOU for reading all the way through to the end.

I really hope you enjoyed today’s article and, if you did, it would mean the world to me if you shared it with your family and friends, on social media or via email. Print it, even, and hand it out. That’s awesome!

But only if you took great value from it, felt inspired by it and believe it would enrich the lives of those around you.

We know we’re not perfect, but we’re trying… like, really, REALLY hard.

Clearly!

But with your help, we can only get better!

The more people we can reach and the more support we receive, the more we can focus on delivering epic, quality content and the more we can learn and grow together in our global mission to Be Moved to Matter.

I also wanna hear from you, honestly!

I don’t bite unless requested to do so. And, even then, I charge for the privilege.

Share a thought or pose an idea or ask me a question. Tell me a story. Reveal a secret. Confess a sin!

We do our best to respond to everyone but will definitely prioritise those curious cats who are clearly on a mission to Gain Perspective, Get Active, Make Connections and Break Free.

You can get in touch by heading over to our contact page, posting a comment in the section below or replying to one of our emails.

And, talking about emails, if you haven’t already subscribed… you seriously need to get your act together!

I’m just kidding — please don’t leave.

Instead, you can sign up right here and now by entering your details below, and we’ll take care of the rest.

When you sign up you’ll get access to exclusive content, and you’ll always be the first to know when a new article goes live.

PLUS, you’ll gain behind-the-scenes insight into what ’gets our juices flowing’ and we’ll often throw in related content and complementary resources meant to help you reach that next level of awesomeness that much sooner.

Additionally, we keep your privates private, and we never spam. Ever!

You are also encouraged to unsubscribe at any time if our stuff isn’t adding value to your life (or, if we start to get on your tits); we totally understand. Who needs junk filling up their inbox, right?

On that note, please check out our Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy and Disclaimer — it’s for your peace of mind.

Oh, and one last thing; always remember to bet on yourself, even when the odds are against you.

Take care and see you soon 😉

---

1. I fundamentally disagree with the assertions made in this video. Moral consideration should be extended to include the wellbeing of animals, not supersede the interests of human beings or humanity. See #CompetingRights. Also, me saving my dog’s life over that of a stranger’s, does not mean I value the life of dog’s over the life of humans; it just means that I value the life of someone with whom I have developed a deep personal connection with over someone with whom I have not. And, yes, we can bond with animals in such a way that they become member’s of our family #AdoptDon’tShop ↩