Metta and the equal value of all beings: Am I interpreting this correctly?
I’ve been thinking about this from a Theravada perspective and I’m curious how other practitioners see it.
I personally prefer animals to humans and generally find them easier and more pleasant to be around. But to me, that’s simply a personal preference. It has nothing to do with how I value their lives. I value animal and human lives equally. My understanding of metta and compassion is that they extend to all beings regardless of our personal preferences toward them.
I understand that human rebirth is considered favorable in Theravada because of the opportunity to encounter and practice the Dhamma. But to me, that’s a different question from the moral value of the being itself.
This originally came up because I responded to a video from "Subway Takes" where the person interviewed argued that people who prefer animals to humans are essentially displaying an unhealthy attitude. He specifically said: "people who like animals more than humans are not good people". I reacted to it because the underlying idea that human lives should inherently be valued above animal lives feels like wrong view to me from a Buddhist perspective.
I commented on the video with making the distinction that preferring animals to humans doesn’t mean valuing animals over humans, and that I value all beings equally. This was strongly criticized, and I was asked whether I would save an animal over a human and whether I place animals at the same value as humans. I said I would save both and that yes, I value them equally. This is what I wrote:
"Buddhists disagree. All beings matter. Even tiny animals.
It's not a competition. Empathic people empathize with all beings.
Liking animals more than people is just a preference.
Valuing an animal's life over a human's life isn't really something animal lovers do? If they proclaim that they do, they are not mentally stable.
As an autistic I relate to and understand animals better than people, so I choose to surround myself with them more than people, bc neurotypicals are unfortunately exhausting for me most of the time.
This is a personal preference. I value all beings equally, as one should. (...)"
The reaction to this made me genuinely question whether there is something I’m missing in my understanding of Theravada. To me, universal metta toward all beings seems fundamentally incompatible with assigning greater inherent value to a being simply because it is human. I’m curious how other Theravadan Buddhists understand this.