At what point is an animal of higher value than a human?

[SM Blackhole]

This is just a bit of a hypothetical ethical debate I had with a friend and I thought I would pose it here. Given that most people here are some sort of vegan/vegetarian I guess that most people value probably feel the same as me in that, sentiments like family or pets aside, pound for pound, a human life is more valuable than an animal life. (My apologies if that is not your stance.) But what are some situations in which that equation changes for you? At what point does it become grey?
Of course, many people would choose their pet's life over a stranger's life. But how about:

A random elephant Vs a random human?
The last male white rhino Vs an random business man?
A dolphin hunting fisherman Vs the dolphin?
Your boss's dog Vs a petty thug?
Etc.

Anyway, what are your answers? And what other ethical dilemmas can you come up with?

[viddy9]

My position is that human lives are generally more important than the lives of nonhuman animals, not because they're members of the species Homo sapiens, but because humans generally have a greater interest in continuing to live. This doesn't apply to all humans, though.

Situations in which the equation changes are when we have multiple highly self-aware nonhuman animals who understand death (almost certainly chimpanzees and other primates, elephants and dolphins), and when we'd have to choose between this group of animals and a single human. In which case I would think it would be morally right to choose the animals if the numbers were sufficiently large. This is the grey area: if the interest in going on living exists on a spectrum and isn't an all-or-nothing thing, then the numbers will differ depending on the species of animal we're talking about.

When it comes to suffering, though, there's no evidence that humans can suffer more intensely than nonhuman animals, and the opposite may indeed be the case, because humans can rationalize their suffering. So, if it wasn't saving lives but torture, and we had to choose between, say, a pig and a human, then it would be right to flip a coin.

I'd probably save the random human, the random businessman, the dolphin, and the petty thug. The dolphin because the fisherman would presumably go on to kill many more dolphins in the future.

[DylanTK]

"Value" is such a subjective thing, especially when you are trying to measure the value of an animal. Most people will naturally value their own kind above all others in all or nearly all circumstances. That tends to be an instinctual emotional bias, and not a rational decision. I value innocence/non-violence, and thus I feel a rabbit has more of a right to live than a serial rapist. I value intelligence, so I would favor a dog over a human in an irreversible vegetative state that can breathe unassisted. I value consciousness/awareness, so I would choose a gorilla over a human embryo (this would be the most heart-wrenching decision, because of the impact it would have on the parents of said embryo, but a gorilla would know it's being killed, an embryo wouldn't. A gorilla would feel pain, fear, and suffering, but an embryo wouldn't. So, while it's a terrible choice to make, I think that's the more ethical/rational one.