Kevin's Watch

I got interested in discussing this idea after participating in the "Remember the 'If Abortion is murder' thread?" thread, which was very interesting, for a while... anyway, Cail made a statement that intrigued me. I couldn't find the exact quote but he said basically that human life has no value beyond the philosophical.

I disagree with that, but my reasons are that human life has value ascribed to it by its Creator, and it has nothing to do with the kind of value we ascribe to people-- i.e., according to ethnicity, gender, accomplishments, wealth, privilege, talent, intelligence, youth or age, beauty, or even goodness-- but because He chooses to love.

But I also realize not everyone here shares that worldview. So what I was interested in, is what is the value of human life? Because I'm not sure that without a belief in God, or at least a soul, a person can find value in human life "beyond the philosophical". Am I wrong?

The value of a human life is determined the same way as the value of anything else: What are people willing to do for it?

From my own theological perspective:

The value of human life lies in our ego. (Avatar is going to be thrilled out of his office chair if he reads this. )
We are the only creatures (as far as we know) who have a fully formed individuality. The implications of this are vast, but one of the most important as i see it: We can create.

Given our perception (illusion, I would say) that we are distinct from our environment, we have the ability to reach out, shape it and create our own realities. From this arises all that is beautiful and terrible about our race.

I would say that, objectively, it is of no more or less value than anything else (life or things seen as inert). Of course, 'value' is a judgment based on ego as well, so objectively, things just are (or are not).

The only time it takes a value at all is when ego comes in. The endemic view is that people (you and, by extension, others like you) are of some intrinsic value. Of course, for most, it doesn't even go so far as all people- just ones they hold sympathy with.

The entire topic is really ungraspable, in my opinion. We can only speak from the ego because that's what we are. And, in practical terms, as someone pointed out, that's all most people will ever care about, let alone consider. Therefore, you have to speak at that level, but hopefully remember that it's a self-deception.

People will create elaborate constructs such as religions or philosophies and so on to create a base of 'meaning' but it's all just so much... well, as Christopher Cranch put it,

What is social company
But a babbling summer stream?
What our wise philosophy
But the glancing of a dream?

For myself, I like to pretend that I aspire to acknowledge that which is while trying to remember that I know absolutely nothing. Of course, I am just as self-deluded as anyone else.

And, to specifically answer your last question, I am not religious and don't believe in some godhead, but I find great value in being kind to all things, not just humans. This value, by necessity, being totally subjective.

It's funny you posted this topic because I was reading that abortion post you referred to and considered asking this exact question. However, I had no intention of entering that discussion.

deer of the dawn wrote:, Cail made a statement that intrigued me. I couldn't find the exact quote but he said basically that human life has no value beyond the philosophical.

IIRC, Cail said if you don't recognize a fertilized egg as human and having rights THEN human life has no value beyond the philosophical.
Not trying to be snippy or parse to closely, but his real statement is the opposite of the way you paraphrase it [unless my memory is faulty, which it could be!].

Anyway, I think my view has much in common with Cambo's implication: we can, and do, make newness and uniqueness in the world that could not happen without us. Not just objects/artifacts...cultures, ideas, etc.
Of course, we arise from the universe, and the universe doesn't give a damn, can't give a damn. But that doesn't matter...because we give a damn.
I part ways though at the idea we are the only fully formed individuality.
What we are, so far as we know, is the culmination [so far] of self-aware identity AND other-aware society. We don't have just one ego...we have two [at least]. I don't think we're done with either, though...we're in the process of becoming both more individual and more social...causes a lot of strife, but eventually the two may unite.

Vraith wrote:

deer of the dawn wrote:, Cail made a statement that intrigued me. I couldn't find the exact quote but he said basically that human life has no value beyond the philosophical.

IIRC, Cail said if you don't recognize a fertilized egg as human and having rights THEN human life has no value beyond the philosophical.
Not trying to be snippy or parse to closely, but his real statement is the opposite of the way you paraphrase it [unless my memory is faulty, which it could be!].

On the other hand, I said in that thread exactly what deer stated.

Murrin wrote:

Vraith wrote:

deer of the dawn wrote:, Cail made a statement that intrigued me. I couldn't find the exact quote but he said basically that human life has no value beyond the philosophical.

IIRC, Cail said if you don't recognize a fertilized egg as human and having rights THEN human life has no value beyond the philosophical.
Not trying to be snippy or parse to closely, but his real statement is the opposite of the way you paraphrase it [unless my memory is faulty, which it could be!].

On the other hand, I said in that thread exactly what deer stated.

Heh...I'll blame it all on you then.

It depends of whose life.
If I had to chose between saving my kids or a billion people dying I'd choose my kids and wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
If I had to choose between 100 or 101 strangers I'd chose the group of 101 just because it's more people.
Then there's whether or not they are good or bad.
100 murders or 1 child....you get the picture.
So "value" really depend, imo.

Vraith wrote:I part ways though at the idea we are the only fully formed individuality.

Elaborate?

Vraith wrote:What we are, so far as we know, is the culmination [so far] of self-aware identity AND other-aware society. We don't have just one ego...we have two [at least]. I don't think we're done with either, though...we're in the process of becoming both more individual and more social...causes a lot of strife, but eventually the two may unite.

I tend to see it more as the ego expanding, after a relatively brief survival mode, to identify with others as extensions of the self. Or at least, important to the self's wellbeing.
I like the idea, though, that we are becoming more individual and more social, and this is causing shit. Time to ponder...

Nothing 'has value', it can only 'be valued'. I've applied this to the abortion debate before, saying that it isn't really the fetus the parents value, but the child it could become. That's what really muddies the waters, because to parents (and most people) children are valued. There's a disconnect, though. A piece of paper could potentially become an awesome drawing, but in this case people would only place value on the paper based on it being a piece of paper, not its potential for art or obscene drawings.

Human life is the most important thing there is. Nothing else understands, explores, appreciates, and glories in existence the way we do. That's tops, in my book.

We are the crowning glory of creation.

Spoiler

Creation is fucked, isn't it.

First, both O and Fist have things I meant to mean, but they were more specific/lucid in describing it.
Then this, Cam:

Cambo wrote:

Vraith wrote:I part ways though at the idea we are the only fully formed individuality.

Elaborate?

Vraith wrote:What we are, so far as we know, is the culmination [so far] of self-aware identity AND other-aware society. We don't have just one ego...we have two [at least]. I don't think we're done with either, though...we're in the process of becoming both more individual and more social...causes a lot of strife, but eventually the two may unite.

I tend to see it more as the ego expanding, after a relatively brief survival mode, to identify with others as extensions of the self. Or at least, important to the self's wellbeing.
I like the idea, though, that we are becoming more individual and more social, and this is causing shit. Time to ponder...

To me, those aren't separate things as you broke them up. They are necessarily entangled.
An alligator is a fully formed individuality. There are aspects of self/other awareness that we are capable of that it is not, many of them cognitive, but also many that are not [wolves are more self/other aware than gators..they have more of the other things, but not the cognitive things that we do] Neither of them EVER mistakes, for instance, their own hindquarters for food...but wolves are higher/more social AND more aware of a "personal identity." SOME of the difference is strictly survival-instinct related, but not all of it.
I'm glad you like the idea of both individual and social growing. The initial impetus for this idea in me was other social beings: chimps and wolves, they feel [this was denied for a while, some still deny, but they're falling] the loss of those "close" to them...not always, not every circumstance, but at least sometimes. Only humans [and perhaps...just preliminary, but perhaps, some types of whales and dolphins] feel the death of strangers. And, as far as we know, only humans can kill another human and yet feel at the same time sadness/guilt/loss for doing it, even when there was no other choice.

The value of human life is totally subjective. It means different things to different people based on their inherent genetics and learned beliefs. There can never be a "value" agreed upon in regards to human life by society as a whole or even as an individual. It's intellectually and emotionally impossible.

it's also completely abstract as we have no clue what we really are even.
are we spiritual entities riding around in vehicles of flesh? are we high functioning animals? does it matter either way?
"value" is completely subjective.

we value being because we can't imagine not being, or because a "higher authority" tells us we should or we invent a "higher authority" that tells us we should because we can't imagine not being.

i value being here (alive in this world) because it somehow seems like a gift.
i know it will end so i value it while i am here (and i try to collect all the data i can in case i have to report back to aforementioned higher authority when it's over!)

and i value other lives as much as i do my own, so, practically speaking, i pretty much agree with HLT. if asked to make a choice between my own life or someone elses it would have to depend on who the someone else was.

Cambo wrote:Given our perception (illusion, I would say) that we are distinct from our environment, we have the ability to reach out, shape it and create our own realities. From this arises all that is beautiful and terrible about our race.

Hahaha. Well said. I would add that it has exactly the value we assign to it at any time. Life's value has always been variable. It still is variable, as you'll find different values assigned to it in different cultures and environments.

Everybody values their own life to a certain extent, and the lives of others to a certain extent. Some people are capable of deciding that other lives outweigh theirs, and some aren't.

--A

I agree, I would totally throw myself in front of the bus for Lucimay without a chance for a heartbeat to pass, it's a no brainer. I would do that for so many people I know and even those I don't know, example of people I have never met in person: Would I throw myself in front of the bus for the parents/prison inmates that provided the genetic basis and subsequent traumatizing of the kids for the kids that Danlo is now raising? NO. Would I throw myself in front of the bus for the kids that he is raising and loves as his own? YES. So yes, I value human life on a scale based on my personal perceptions.

Orlion wrote:Nothing 'has value', it can only 'be valued'. I've applied this to the abortion debate before, saying that it isn't really the fetus the parents value, but the child it could become. That's what really muddies the waters, because to parents (and most people) children are valued. There's a disconnect, though. A piece of paper could potentially become an awesome drawing, but in this case people would only place value on the paper based on it being a piece of paper, not its potential for art or obscene drawings.

What you are saying, O, is that human life, or perhaps more accurately a human life only has what value we ascribe to it. Does it follow that lives no one values have no value? I'm not talking about thugs, what about the slave boy in the Sudan whose name everyone has forgotten unless they think they need something from him?

Fist wrote:Human life is the most important thing there is. Nothing else understands, explores, appreciates, and glories in existence the way we do. That's tops, in my book.

Again, an ascribed value.

Ex2 wrote:We are the crowning glory of creation.

Creation is f@%$#d, isn't it.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Jenn wrote:The value of human life is totally subjective. It means different things to different people based on their inherent genetics and learned beliefs. There can never be a "value" agreed upon in regards to human life by society as a whole or even as an individual. It's intellectually and emotionally impossible.

I agree completely, which is why I tried so hard to nail people down in the abortion debate as to when they began to value a human life. I argued there is no magic moment when a fetus goes from "tissue" to human. It is just that when it's tiny and not fully formed, we don't SEE value in it, but that does not mean it is not valuable.

People's statements here pretty much reflect the same thing lucimay says: that the value of life is subjective; at least from our perspective, there is no intrinsic, absolute value to it-- to us.

I guess I am not surprised and I am glad to know what your worldview is, but my own, for the record, is different. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe that human beings have value because we are created. Not only that but we have the image of God-- not that he looks like a white dude with a beard, not at all! but that we are rational, emotional, volitional beings; and we are capable of creativity and imagination; of seeing more than what there is to see with our physical eyes.

Which explains why Christ was willing to sacrifice in order to redeem us from our (as Ex would say) f@#$%d-up-ness.

More later, g2g now.

Yes. Ascribed and subjective. Which is the only kind of value anything has, imo.

I think the real question here is: What would you do for a Klondike bar?

And what would Jesus do for a Klondike bar?


I really need to get more sleep.