The range of what is considered normal in terms of nearly all human behaviors and reports of subjective experience is very broad. Individual and social values largely determine what is normal, and also what is acceptable in terms of human behavior. Concepts of normalcy and acceptability tend to be socially determined.

There is no way for me to know if worker bees or ants fret about their circumscribed roles. The further the species is from my particular branch on the tree of life, the more limited is my capacity to even speculate in a way that has any 'objective' value. When I begin to speculate about species other than my own that are closer to the human branch, say, mammals, it behooves me to be aware of the possibility of anthropomorphic tendencies.

Although it is not true of all human cultures, being from a Western culture, it does not bother me in the least to stomp on a cockroach. It does bother me to accidentally run over a groundhog. I could quickly re-arrange my "conscience" however, to justify shooting the same groundhog, if he keeps destroying my vegetable garden. Alternatively, I can assuage my 'conscience', by trapping him in a box trap, and then releasing him in some other territory, where he may or may not be able to establish himself and continue to live. Out of sight, out of mind.

From a purely rational point of view, I do not believe that the life of a human being is inherently more valuable than the life of a chicken, cow, groundhog, or sunflower.

For the sake of convenience, realistic manageabilility , and survival, I am willing to assign a tertiary value to the evidence that suggests humans in general, and this human in particular, are no more or less significant than any other life form. I am even willing to ignore, suppress or repress all evidence of such, and adopt primary and secondary beliefs (which I will treat as 'fact' or 'truth', ) in order to insure my own survival and sense of well-being.