|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 5, 2009 16:26:44 GMT -5
Human life is a resource. It is precious because it is fragile and useful. Sure you can replace it, but that takes time.
You shouldn't kill people unless absolutely necessary simply because that would be a squandering of resources.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Jun 6, 2009 10:19:21 GMT -5
In my attempt to have some consistency in my beliefs, I've tried to figure out this problem. Life in and of itself, isn't particularly impressive. It involves metabolism and respiration. Big deal. Having a sense of self, seems to be inherently valuable. To kill a someone aware of their existence seems to be problematic, as it deprives the world of a unique perspective, and (this is hard to explain) deprives the individual of his selfhood (yes I know he won't be aware of it after the fact.) For all the reasons there are for protecting rational people, it always seems like non-rational infants get the short end of the stick. They don't have a sense of self, aren't especially aware of their own existence, they can't even make moral decisions. Almost everyone believes human infants are valuable. Why? If we remove parental instinct from the argument we can say that an infant has potential. And is awareness etc a solid basis to measure how a life is lived. Just existing in the world is a wonderful thing.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jun 11, 2009 21:33:03 GMT -5
I generally don't hold that human life has any intrinsic value whatsoever. I disagree. The very fact that we are human gives us intrinsic value. Think about it. Can you think of an objective reason to say that some humans are better than others? It depends on the circumstance. If I defend myself against a physical attack, and am willing to kill my opponent if necessary, it's not that I think his life has no value, it's that I believe that I have the right to survival. The person attacking me has shown that he feels his right to survive is more important (or, more likely, his right to gain from me). As an individual, it is my right to defend myself. Again, it is not that I believe that human life has relative value-that is to say, I don't consider him to be less valuable than me, it's that I believe that I have the right to survive-much in the same way that he does. Had this individual not attacked me, then I would not have fought back, and treated him with the same respect of rights as I believe I have. But stripped of their philosophies, what makes Ghandi better than Hitler? Why does the individual Adolf Hitler (again, ignoring philosophy) have relative value to that of Mohandas (sp?) Ghandi? He doesn't. Think about it. If the Nazis had won, or at least, not completely defeated, Hitler would not be devalued as much. This is not to say that other people would not decry his attempt at wiping out the Jews, but much in the way that we ignore leaders who attack their citizens now, very likely, Europe and the U.S. would have ignored the Holocaust then. It is justified (at least for me) in this: I am human. I am a living, breathing thinking being. As such, I have the right to survive and to enjoy my life as I see fit. Because there is no objective reason that other humans are in some way inferior/superior to me, then it stands to reason that they have the same worth I do (that is, that they have the right to survive and to enjoy their lives as they see fit). Because of this, depriving another person of their life or freedoms is the same as saying that it's okay for someone else to do the same to me. In other words, because I consider myself to have intrinsic value based on me being human, it follows that other humans have to have intrinsic value, in order for my own to be valid. Marc
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jun 11, 2009 22:04:31 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. I disagree. I'll prove it. Kill my son. The first thought in your head was probably, "Of course not. Don't be stupid." But why not? My son is certainly not your son, so, why should it matter? He's not as valuable to you as your sons are. You react this way for the same reason I'd never consider killing your sons. We both believe that they have intrinsic value. While emotionally, you are most certainly more attached to your kids than mine (as I am more attached to mine than yours), you recognize that objectively, there is no reason why your sons are better than mine intrinsicly. Because the viewpoints (that Hitler was a baddie and Ghandi a good guy) are subjective not objective. While you and I believe that Hitler was evil, the Nazi's didn't. There are those today who don't think Hitler was evil. While initially, it might seem correct to say, "A person who is evil deserves to die," it leads to a dangerous dilemma. That is, who decides what's evil? The winners? The majority? The victim? Yes, because it's a subjective view, not an objective one. Marc
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 12, 2009 11:34:03 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. I disagree. I'll prove it. Kill my son. The first thought in your head was probably, "Of course not. Don't be stupid." But why not? My son is certainly not your son, so, why should it matter? He's not as valuable to you as your sons are. m52 didn't say that other people had NO value. He said that others have LESS value to him than his own sons. Would he kill your sons just because? No, because they have value to him. Would he chose his own sons' live above yours, if those were his only choices? Probably, because his sons' lives have MORE value to him than yours.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 12, 2009 11:40:52 GMT -5
Because the viewpoints (that Hitler was a baddie and Ghandi a good guy) are subjective not objective. ... Yes, because it's a subjective view, not an objective one. The entire concept of "value" is inherently subjective. While I agree with you that the best moral philosophy is one that treats all human live as having the same intrinsic value, even that opinion is subjective. It's impossible to prove that human life (or anything else for that matter) has intrinsic value, or that any moral philosophy is inherently better than any other.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jun 12, 2009 14:35:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on Jun 12, 2009 17:55:50 GMT -5
I generally don't hold that human life has any intrinsic value whatsoever. I disagree. The very fact that we are human gives us intrinsic value. In other words, you're stating that people are valuable because they happen to be members of our species. Let's say I made a statement that oak trees are intrinsically valuable by virtue of their species memberships -- would you agree or disagree? More importantly, is it possible to distinguish my claim about oak trees being valuable from your claim about humans being valuable? I'm inclined to say no, since they are both based on the same moral principles. Please correct me if I've misunderstood. Just wondering: have you eaten any sort of pork, beef, lamb, or other meat this week? Specifically, we can weigh the relative moral difference between Hitler and Ghandi in terms of the harm they caused to others. In this way, we have an argument that Hitler would have negative value even if he had soundly destroyed all other armies. Quick question: do you believe might makes right is a valid moral principle? I'm almost positive that you place zero value on living and breathing on the basis that you're content to destroy the lives of a bagillion living, breathing organisms throughout you're entire life, even when you could easily avoid causing harm to at least some organisms. The key here is "thinking" -- its a valid moral characteristics which distinguishes you from certain forms of life, including plants, microbes, and non-rational life forms. Its not the being human part that's relevant, its a capacity to think. I'm inclined to ask: do your moral principles extend to cover all humans? For example, do non-thinking, non-rational humans have a claim to moral value?
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on Jun 12, 2009 17:57:19 GMT -5
Because the viewpoints (that Hitler was a baddie and Ghandi a good guy) are subjective not objective. ... Yes, because it's a subjective view, not an objective one. The entire concept of "value" is inherently subjective. Inherently subjective? Can you support that with an argument of some kind?
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 12, 2009 18:01:25 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. I disagree. I'll prove it. Kill my son. The first thought in your head was probably, "Of course not. Don't be stupid." But why not? My son is certainly not your son, so, why should it matter? He's not as valuable to you as your sons are. I'll probably get in a lot of trouble and it's just not worth the hastle and my (likely) loss of freedom. See, I just proved that even if I feel your son (or any other human) isn't worth anything, I'm not going to be inclined to kill him. I also proved relative worth, I find my freedom more valuable than killing him for sake of an arguement.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jun 12, 2009 20:48:17 GMT -5
No, I believe that because I have intrinsic value, and am human, then others have intrinsic value as well. There isn't, as far as I've seen, any objective reason to declare someone less intrinsically valuable than I am, or that I am more intrinsically valuable than others. You did misunderstand me. Humans are omnivores. We eat meat, as well as vegetables. Based on what you've responded to my post thus far, I'm inclined to think you want me to force my dog to eat grass (if I had one). Key word here: Relative. I'm speaking of objective value, not relative. How do you get that out of what I said? Are you trying to imply that I think Hitler should have won? My belief is that all humans have intrinsic value. There is no objective reason to say otherwise. Yes, Hitler was, by our definition, evil. Hell, I'm sure that there are people who believe Bush to have been evil. And yet, there are those who think both men weren't. That makes the judgment call of good vs. evil subjective, not objectiveReally? Which ones. I'm honestly curious. As for the ones I can't avoid killing, so what? Should I stop breathing or living? I am an organism. My very existence, as you point out, causes other organisms to die. If there is nothing that I can do to prevent it, then why would I worry about it. Do viruses worry that they make their host sick in an attempt to survive? You're inclined to ask this because you've misunderstood my point. You are either thinking that I believe all life is intrinsically sacred, and thus, shouldn't be killed at all, or that I'm a monster who thinks "Might makes right," and "non-thinking, non-rational" people can and should be abused. If it's because I haven't made myself clear, I apologize. Let me restate as best I can: My moral values come from the fact that I am human. I consider myself to have intrinsic value. Because there is no objective reason to consider other humans to have less value than me (or me more than them), all other humans have intrinsic value as well. Eating meat is acceptable, as far as I'm concerned. Humans are omnivores, and meat is part of their diet. As I said before, should I punish carnivores for eating meat? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jun 12, 2009 20:49:52 GMT -5
I'll probably get in a lot of trouble and it's just not worth the hastle and my (likely) loss of freedom. See, I just proved that even if I feel your son (or any other human) isn't worth anything, I'm not going to be inclined to kill him. I also proved relative worth, I find my freedom more valuable than killing him for sake of an arguement. Are you really saying that the only reason you don't kill people is because you believe you'll get caught? Somehow I don't think that's true. Marc
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 12, 2009 21:40:09 GMT -5
The entire concept of "value" is inherently subjective. Inherently subjective? Can you support that with an argument of some kind? I'll try this one. When you sort out your morality, are you letting your feelings guide what your ethical code should be? Or are you telling yourself how you're supposed to feel, morally speaking, in any particular situation? In other words, which of the following statements is more descriptive of morality: `My code of ethics exists so I can avoid feeling morally repugnant.' OR `My feelings of morality are determined by a moral code.' ? The former statement implies that you believe that morality is subjective, because emotional experience is inherently subjective. The latter statement implies that you believe that morality is objective, because moral codes are (presumably) independent entities to which multiple people can attest simultaneously. But if you believe the latter, that is, that your feelings of right and wrong are determined by a moral code, then this makes morality itself subjective, since various moral codes exist which are independent of each other and are not each universally followed, e.g., strict fundamentalists who adhere to different scripture. Further, people with differing moral codes tend to find them irreconcilable in at least some respects. If we accept and generalise this idea, that all concepts of morality are incompatible in at least some level, then it's safe to hold that perhaps this irreconcilability is inherent, and that morality is inherently subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on Jun 12, 2009 22:38:34 GMT -5
Inherently subjective? Can you support that with an argument of some kind? I'll try this one. When you sort out your morality, are you letting your feelings guide what your ethical code should be? Or are you telling yourself how you're supposed to feel, morally speaking, in any particular situation? In other words, which of the following statements is more descriptive of morality: `My code of ethics exists so I can avoid feeling morally repugnant.' OR `My feelings of morality are determined by a moral code.' ? The former statement implies that you believe that morality is subjective, because emotional experience is inherently subjective. The latter statement implies that you believe that morality is objective, because moral codes are (presumably) independent entities to which multiple people can attest simultaneously. Or you can take the approach the intersubjective approach: morality does not exists outside of subjective wants, but its not created by it either. Morality exists in the space filled by intersubjective constructs, meaning it exists between people and their interactions. It exists in fundamentally the same way that friendships and economies exist. (Actually I'd argue that morality exists in a way similar to an economy than a friendship. Economies are emergent phenomena which occur when people compete and trade scarce resources. Friendships exist when people agree they exist.) I'd go even further to state that its not important to demonstrate that morality is "correct" in any scientifically quantifiable way. What matters is moral consistency -- if we can reduce morality down to a set of moral principles, even subjective principles, we can test those principles for moral consistency. If its possible to show that a moral system is internally inconsistent, we can reject it outright. In general, this allows for two mutually exclusive, yet internally consistent moral principles to exist simultaneously -- I don't believe this is a problem, I liken it to the way that Turing Machines and Lamda Calculus define two very different formal systems for describing computations, yet both systems are capable of describing the exact same set computations. In my experience, internally consistent moral systems, whatever they may be, almost always prescribe the same set of behaviors, and are indistinguishable from one another in practice. Any approach toward an internally consistent ethic is an approach toward a "correct" one. We can appreciate a consistent ethic on its own merits without ever committing ourselves to the position that morality is objective or subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on Jun 12, 2009 23:01:41 GMT -5
You are either thinking that I believe all life is intrinsically sacred ... My moral values come from the fact that I am human. I consider myself to have intrinsic value. Because there is no objective reason to consider other humans to have less value than me (or me more than them), all other humans have intrinsic value as well. I'm afraid I just don't see why being human matters all. Species membership, in and of itself, communicates no facts that anyone can make a moral decision from. What makes " I'm a human, therefore all other humans are equally value valuable" valid, but the equivalent statement " I'm a living being, therefore all other living beings are equally valuable" is false. What objective reason is there for excluding all other forms of life from moral consideration? More to the point, I'm pretty sure that you believe that your suffering matters morally (after all, you will certainly have objections to someone torturing you endlessly for years on end, even if they did not shorten your natural lifespan). Can we make a claim that your suffering matters, therefore we should take the suffering of any being into consideration? Or is there some objective basis for excluding the suffering of non-humans?
|
|