|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 2, 2009 19:33:03 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? Personally, I think the mirror test only proves that the subject can understand that it's a reflective substance and not something that's see-through. I really don't get what that has to do with self-awareness. It seems more like an observation skill thing
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 2, 2009 20:11:22 GMT -5
My understanding is that it proves that the individual knows that it is looking at itself, and not at another of its kind. This demonstrates that the subject is aware that it is an individual and thus self aware. I think it might be a bit of a stretch myself, but it is difficult to ask something "who are you?" if you don't spek their language, so I guess it is the best measure we have.
To complicate matters, at about 18 months (I guess) my daughter knew she was looking at herself in the mirror, but any baby picture, including her own, were just babies. She did not recognise her younger self. I guess in developmental terms she was only partially self aware.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 2, 2009 21:02:09 GMT -5
I don't think anything can have intrinsic value simply because "value" is just a social construct that doesn't exist in nature. What value we assign to human life, like anything else, is going to vary from individual to individual and it will never come close to being objective. I personally think self-awareness helps people to understand why they assign human life the value they do as an individual, but I don't think it makes their opinion any more objective or valid, nor does it really change my personal opinion of their worth.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Jun 3, 2009 16:28:31 GMT -5
Few things are as annoying as hypotheticals regarding morality. Regarding the value of human life, turn off the cerebration and look. During the four- or five-month battle for Verdun in WWI. combined French and German casualties were 700,000 No land changed hands. And they're still turning up skulls. Precious my ass! It's like the popular bleat, "We all hate war." In a pig's posterior we do. Inflicting death and destruction are among man's very favorite pastimes. If we all truly hated war there would be no war.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 3, 2009 17:01:05 GMT -5
If we all truly hated war there would be no war. While I don't particularly disagree with the overall gist of your post, I have to point out that this statement doesn't follow. Just because you hate something doesn't mean you'll never do it. I hate needles, but I still get shots when I need to for my health, because I hate being sick more. So someone who hates war still might go to war, if the alternative is something they hate more.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jun 4, 2009 22:19:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 4, 2009 22:28:24 GMT -5
If you melt down a car into its individual materials, it's not worth much either. It's the configuration of those materials into a machine that serves a useful purpose that makes it expensive. Given how complex and multi-functional the human machine is, and how difficult and expensive it is to produce, compared to a car, I'd say that if you wanted to put a dollar value on a human being, it would have to be AT LEAST significantly more than a car.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jun 4, 2009 22:30:21 GMT -5
Do I really need sarcasm tags for that post?
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 4, 2009 22:40:18 GMT -5
Sorry, I've heard that argument used in all seriousness, by a college professor no less.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Jun 4, 2009 22:47:05 GMT -5
If we all truly hated war there would be no war. Untrue. At least, as long as we still hate people more than wars.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Jun 4, 2009 23:05:31 GMT -5
If you melt down a car into its individual materials, it's not worth much either. It's the configuration of those materials into a machine that serves a useful purpose that makes it expensive. Given how complex and multi-functional the human machine is, and how difficult and expensive it is to produce, compared to a car, I'd say that if you wanted to put a dollar value on a human being, it would have to be AT LEAST significantly more than a car. Says you. Have you ever tried to load your groceries into the back of a person?
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 4, 2009 23:09:24 GMT -5
If you melt down a car into its individual materials, it's not worth much either. It's the configuration of those materials into a machine that serves a useful purpose that makes it expensive. Given how complex and multi-functional the human machine is, and how difficult and expensive it is to produce, compared to a car, I'd say that if you wanted to put a dollar value on a human being, it would have to be AT LEAST significantly more than a car. Says you. Have you ever tried to load your groceries into the back of a person? Only one cucumber at a time.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 4, 2009 23:17:41 GMT -5
If you melt down a car into its individual materials, it's not worth much either. It's the configuration of those materials into a machine that serves a useful purpose that makes it expensive. Given how complex and multi-functional the human machine is, and how difficult and expensive it is to produce, compared to a car, I'd say that if you wanted to put a dollar value on a human being, it would have to be AT LEAST significantly more than a car. Seeing as a car's value comes the supply and demand of trading it, if we wanted to find a $ value of humans, we'd have to restart the slave trade.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jun 4, 2009 23:30:43 GMT -5
If you melt down a car into its individual materials, it's not worth much either. It's the configuration of those materials into a machine that serves a useful purpose that makes it expensive. Given how complex and multi-functional the human machine is, and how difficult and expensive it is to produce, compared to a car, I'd say that if you wanted to put a dollar value on a human being, it would have to be AT LEAST significantly more than a car. Says you. Have you ever tried to load your groceries into the back of a person? I have.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Jun 5, 2009 8:25:00 GMT -5
Says you. Have you ever tried to load your groceries into the back of a person? Only one cucumber at a time. +1, good sir.
|
|