|
Post by shiftyeyes on Jun 1, 2009 20:42:53 GMT -5
Almost everyone believes human infants are valuable. Why? The best current evidence suggests self-awareness (as a distinct, unified entity), the criterion I claim as intrinsically valuable, occurs in humans somewhere between 3 and 6 months. So yes, I'm saying that less than 3 month old infants aren't intrinsically valuable. I can deal with that. But that's still leaves quite a bit infants valuable.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jun 1, 2009 20:51:25 GMT -5
I know you are going to hate this argument, but as I see it, it's might be because they have the potential to become rational beings. That's not to say potential X gets the same value as X, but that potential to have value grants value in itself, although not equal to the one they might eventually have. I might not be expressing myself clearly here, if so sorry about that. To make a long story short, potential person arguments say "X is a potential Y, therefore X should be treated the same as Y".It sounds good at face value, but its just bad philosophy. Case in point: you're a potential corpse, but its wrong to bury you; infants are potential child bearers, but its wrong to have sex with them. Why? Evidently its wrong to bury you because you're not dead, and its wrong to have sex with infants because they aren't capable of consenting to sexual relationships with others; it turns out that, in the end, we make moral decisions based on exactly the characteristics people have right now, not the ones they might have 20 years from now. Read back, that's not what I said. I'm not arguing that potential Y should be treated exactly like Y, that much, I agree, is wrong. I am saying that, by virtue of the fact X has the potential for Y, it gains some value, if only just to allow for the possibility it will be more valuable later. This value is not the same as the value of Y. To give a somewhat crude analogy, suppose you have a raffle ticket. It holds no value from what it is right now, a bit of paper and ink showing a number. In the future, however, it might become something that has value by itself in the future. You wouldn't just throw the ticket away as if it was just another piece of paper. An infant could be seen like that, only the odds of winning are quite higher. That is true, at that point it doesn't work. True, we still protect kids if parents don't like them. As regarding Sally and her abortion, it's a matter of whether Sally's right to control over her body is more important than her neighbour's desire not to be sad. I could point out that what isn't covered by one of my above options is covered by the other, but I'm probably missing cases in which neither applies. And something feels intuitively wrong with mixing systems, but I can't point out what it is. I always feel like this when discussing systems of morality.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jun 1, 2009 20:58:24 GMT -5
All life is equally valuable. Even the serial killers. People being good or bad people does not affect the value of their life any more than a person having a disability. As long as we are alive we have the power to change. Ourselves and the world around us. "..No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee If all life is equally valuable, how do you justify killing to eat? Even if you are vegetarian, plants and cells are alive too. You have killed considerably more than the amount of cells in your body by now. And if you mean human life, which you probably did, how do you justify killing in self defence? If there are two people trying to kill you and your only chance to survive is to kill them both, would you let them kill you and thus save a life? If you had to choose between saving a person who has killed millions and a person that has saved millions, would you say the choice is impossible? If it was two murderers vs one saviour, would you let the one guy die and save the other 2? Saying all life is equal sounds nice and all, but doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 1, 2009 22:39:42 GMT -5
I would say that life has intrinsic value because it's something that's "unique" for each person.
And if there is no afterlife... then life has all the more of an intrinsic value, because as the saying goes, "you only live once."
I also view the death penalty as nothing more than a petty legalized revenge that's been renamed to "justice". There's ways to remove threats from society without killing them, you know.
As far as "killing to eat"... it's sad, but that is how the world works. Predators kill prey. Various predators kill prey in such ways that makes our own slaughter system seem almost humane (not that it's any justification). The world is a cruel place, but there's also a lot of good in it.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 1, 2009 22:49:44 GMT -5
I believe that the ability to empathise with something or somebody is the key: a well-developed sense of empathy is a function of socialisation as well as cognitive and emotional development (usually appearing by age four), and ethics and morality is the process of using one's cognitive abilities in order to most satisfy one's empathic sense.
If this speculation of mine is true, then "wrong" describes those situations where one empathises with people who are being harmed and suffers accordingly, and "right" describes situations where one feels the least anxiety (or the most contentment) due to empathy. Ethical dilemmas are thus those situations where one's sense of empathy is transgressed no matter how one acts.
Under this regime of thinking, killing children is wrong because "everybody" can empathise with a child, having been one at some point in life. And presumably, people with a diminished sense of empathy have trouble developing a moral code.
|
|
|
Post by lumberjackninja on Jun 2, 2009 0:11:46 GMT -5
Human infant lives are valuable compared to all other non-human life on the planet. If one makes the reasonable assumption that your only biological imperative is to pass on the genes of your parents- which I would say is entirely reasonable- then it makes sense that this value of infants is programmed into (most) of us. I wouldn't say that "you only biological imperative is to pass on the genes of your parents" is reasonable at all, namely because evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. Last time I checked one of the silliest arguments fundies have against evolution is that its a moral theory. (I personally find the idea that "you're wired to do something, therefore you should" is particular scary. Too easy to justify anything with those principles.) Keyword being "biological". Of course there's more to life than making babies. But as far as evolution and value of life goes, it's no large leap of logic to assume that the valuation of infants is programmed into us on a social and possibly biological level. I mean, when you think about it, all those attributes that we would cite as the reason we love our closest friends and family- the people we ought to value most- are entirely absent in infants. Intellect, wisdom, a sense of humor, social gracefulness- all are lacking in babies. So, lacking a logical reason to care for them as much as other people, I posit that there must be some other mechanism at work. Then again, it's not unheard for peoples actions and thoughts- both conscious and subconscious- to form and refine without the constraints of logic or rationality.
|
|
|
Post by tygerarmy on Jun 2, 2009 5:31:09 GMT -5
All life is equally valuable. Even the serial killers. People being good or bad people does not affect the value of their life any more than a person having a disability. As long as we are alive we have the power to change. Ourselves and the world around us. "..No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee If all life is equally valuable, how do you justify killing to eat? Even if you are vegetarian, plants and cells are alive too. You have killed considerably more than the amount of cells in your body by now. And if you mean human life, which you probably did, how do you justify killing in self defence? If there are two people trying to kill you and your only chance to survive is to kill them both, would you let them kill you and thus save a life? If you had to choose between saving a person who has killed millions and a person that has saved millions, would you say the choice is impossible? If it was two murderers vs one saviour, would you let the one guy die and save the other 2? Saying all life is equal sounds nice and all, but doesn't work. What a person has done/can do/and will do has no impact on the value of their life. People give a value to a persons life based on their actions. But all lives have the same weight to them. It's like paper money each piece of paper has the same value. Once printed that doesn't mean I'll trade a hundred for five singles. But the value of each piece of paper remained the same.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 2, 2009 6:55:58 GMT -5
What a person has done/can do/and will do has no impact on the value of their life. People give a value to a persons life based on their actions. But all lives have the same weight to them. It's like paper money each piece of paper has the same value. Once printed that doesn't mean I'll trade a hundred for five singles. But the value of each piece of paper remained the same. I disagree. How can you say each life has the same value? From what perspective? My sons lives are much more value to me then anyone else in this world. How can a life that is dedicated to taking others lives be as valuble as a life spent helping others? The value of each person on this earth varies depending on who you ask.
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on Jun 2, 2009 7:13:47 GMT -5
I disagree. How can you say each life has the same value? From what perspective? My sons lives are much more value to me then anyone else in this world. So the value of someones life is relative to how much you like them? Is this really a justifiable ethic? Although a lot of people certainly hold the belief that their friends and family matter more than everyone else, I don't believe its a sound philosophy. Way to easy to make a strong and forceful argument for racism based on the same principles. Ask yourself some questions: Do your children suffer any more or less than those that you've never seen or met? Does having a certain set of genes make them more or less entitled to having a roof over their head, three meals a day, education, safe neighborhood? If not, what morally relevant characteristic do your children have that others don't which gives them a greater claim to moral value than the 10s of millions of mentally and physically similar children in the world? I come from an ultra-egalitarian point of view that states the value of people's lives is directly connected to their capacity to feel pain, pleasure, satisfaction, suffering, make moral decisions, have expectations, etc. In so far that two beings have the same capacities, they're moral equals -- this is true even between your children and the lives of children you'll never see or meet in distant countries.
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on Jun 2, 2009 7:34:16 GMT -5
I would say that life has intrinsic value because it's something that's "unique" for each person. And if there is no afterlife... then life has all the more of an intrinsic value, because as the saying goes, "you only live once." I also view the death penalty as nothing more than a petty legalized revenge that's been renamed to "justice". There's ways to remove threats from society without killing them, you know. I actually like this point of view. However, I occasionally like to think of it in terms of the euthanasia debate: is there any advantage in dying immediately vs going into a permanent vegetative coma for 15 years and then expiring? Presumably, no. A person that that state has already lost their memories, personality, and experiences. It does you no good to die now than it does 15 years from now if you aren't going to have any mental life throughout those 15 years, so you can't exactly harm a person in that state at all by euthanizing them. Euthanasia propoents argue that its not biological life that matters, but rather having a biographical life and experiential welfare. Its the memories, personality, and experiences a person has which makes their lives worth preserving (<--- not my personal belief, but rather quoting a few well-known spokesmen for euthanasia). I'm not sure that "its the way things have always been" has ever been a justification for anything Certainly if you can easily avoid causing purposeful, gratuitous harm to others, you're obliged to do exactly that regardless of whatever anyone else is doing.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 2, 2009 7:58:40 GMT -5
So the value of someones life is relative to how much you like them? Is this really a justifiable ethic? To some degree yes. I suppose you could also call it self centered. It is also, honest. Given a choice between your life or the life of one of my sons, I would always choose my sons life. As I said, more to them. I'm not going to argue that is some out of person view that people should not all hold the same value. The realization is that to each person others people have different values. I'm also not trying to say that while I value some people more then others that all people don't have value. Nor does it mean that placing values on people based on race is right. Unless you want to some how claim that I'm a racist for placing more value on the life of my wife then "insert race here" person that I don't know. They suffer the same, but I would be much more concerned with stopping the suffering of my child then someone I had never met. That does not mean that I would not help a stranger If I could. I would just not do it at the expence on my family. No, a certain st of genes does not make them more entitled to anything. My family is more entitled to efforts my me to ensure they have those things then anyone else on this planet. ...and that is to you. You feel that my children have the same value as other children that I have not met. That is fine, of course you feel that way. You have not real connection with my children other then this conversation. I however do have a connection, and do place more value on them then other people.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Jun 2, 2009 8:04:00 GMT -5
With regards to killing to eat, it's very nearly a moot point. Plants are alive, so ultimately, until such time as humans can photosynthesise, it will be impossible to live without consuming another life at some point. One then has to wonder, is it then better to end only a certain kind of life that one sees as less valuable than others (e.g. vegetarianism and similar diets), or to ensure that one life will be healthier. Either way, something has to die.
From a highly practical point of view, it is then better that animals and plants die, as they can feed more people whilst still not having a large impact on the biosystem. There are not enough species that eat humans for it to be viable to allow ourselves to die off to sustain others. Again a purely vegetarian approach would mean that the deaths would be focused on a smaller group of species, which puts the biosystem at more risk than is perhaps necessary.
This post still reads to me like a rambling mess, I might clean it up later when I'm feeling less stupid.
|
|
|
Post by cosmopants on Jun 2, 2009 9:00:29 GMT -5
A good deal of what consitutes a moral framework is convention, inheritance, and utility, both for individuals and the societies in which they are actors.
Because morality is subjective, it is inherently inconsistent and unlikely ever to conform to or stem from logic. Besides, any attempt I've ever read of to arrive at a system of morality based on reason alone have seemed repulsive to me, and were in any case not solely based on reason but, like every other moral system, on the prejudices and limits of the thinker.
Morality is not, and cannot usefully or benevolently be a concrete, stable system, but is the provenance of decisions which were in themselves neither correct or incorrect, but only reflective, in their best moments, of the compromise between utility and benevolance society found advantageous at the time, and which are constantly challenged and constantly updated.
And we're not capable of any better, either. Any moral choice you make is inevitably based on biased, incomplete information, and any definate decision at which you arrive is very likely to be an injustice.
But, you gotta draw the line somewhere - just remember when doing so that, although it's bullshit, it can be useful.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 2, 2009 10:15:24 GMT -5
So the value of someones life is relative to how much you like them? Is this really a justifiable ethic? To some degree yes. I suppose you could also call it self centered. It is also, honest. Given a choice between your life or the life of one of my sons, I would always choose my sons life. And I would choose my daughters' life over your sons. At the end of the game the only piece that needs to be still standing is the king... or his heir. It might not be pretty but it is the truth.
|
|
|
Post by mice34 on Jun 2, 2009 11:32:59 GMT -5
The best current evidence suggests self-awareness (as a distinct, unified entity), the criterion I claim as intrinsically valuable, occurs in humans somewhere between 3 and 6 months. So yes, I'm saying that less than 3 month old infants aren't intrinsically valuable. I can deal with that. But that's still leaves quite a bit infants valuable. Hm, they pass the mirror test starting around 18 months, occasionally in boys it's as late as 4 years. That's how "self-awareness" is usually measured. There is criticism of the mirror test, but is there a better method? What are they measuring to get 3-6 months?
|
|