madmax2976

Easy. By what criteria would he contend that atheists have "no foundation" for objecting to the nihilist? I certainly would have a foundation - that of not wanting to be dead. What more do I need?

The problem you're going to run into here is that, for the theist, the only acceptable "foundation" is the one they claim exists - their God. They will also claim their foundation is objective and they will claim their foundation is absolute - all without demonstrating any of it, making them rather empty claims.

It is quite possible that some nihilist would find me of no value, perhaps see something he'd like to take and attempt to kill me (or someone else) to get it. Its very likely I would find this objectionable as I want to live - I do find value in myself and in living. The view of the nihilist does not "cancel out" my view, as your theist friend seems to suggest. My view is every bit as real as is the nihilists. So at this point we simply have conflicting views and can do one of the following:

- part ways, agreeing to disagree
- fight and see who is victorious
- negotiate and attempt to reach a compromise

This probably isn't what your theist friend will like since the whole point of such a line of argument is to end up with the supposed wishes of their deity as being the "answer" to the conflict. Oh well. Until such time as they can back up their claims, the above answers appear to be the most realistic to me.

Vandrare

i'm not going to get too bogged down in definitions and things, but i definitely think every human (at least to me as the valuer) must have intrinsic value. i believe this first as an argument for the
i dont actually know anybody who isn't of value to somebody around them. everyone i know has friends/family/acqaintences and others who value them. even if just 1 person knew and placed any value at all on you, you can tell that nihilist to bugger off and the xtian to find a better passtime.
secondly, i see the potential of every human as incredibly valuable. after all how do you know that if u died right now, a person you might have briefly met, or something seemingly insignificant that you might have done wouldn't have a significant and positive affect on others? and thats completely separate from any conscious actions you may do in the future to try and improve humanities situation, or just to help a friend. you may completely accidentally do something that affects the future positively. who could ever say for sure that you wouldn't??!!!
It doesn't matter how insignificant or unvaluable a persons seems, everything they choose do or choose not to do, and even just existing is having cause and effect consequences on the world and there's no way anyone can judge wether or not somewhere down the line in the future that these effects weren't helpful!
this seems to me to argue for an intrinsic type of value to the universe as a sort of system?! if my rambling makes sense to anyone else......

Primal

I believe the theist is probably working with an overly narrow view of proof or evidence, as in limiting it to math, observation and expiriment.

This is flawed though, as evidence is not limited to merely what can be proved by sight or deduction(if that were the case we wouldn't have astronomy,history, or science). Obviously such an positivist definition of proof leaves is inadequate at justifying certain things we all know, and attacking such a postivist position is a strawman on the theist's part.

Basically you prove human life has intrinsic value by the same means you prove that you have any intrinsic values at all.

Like for example that we have fun with a game and such. Basically you feel it, this is a sort of evidence as a feeling is a sensation. Basically this amounts to proving a given act is pleasurable. And value judgements ultimately come down to feelings, so feeling "good" about something is evidence you value it: because that is what it means to value. And if you value something it must be intrinsic, unless it leads to other values(hence the distinction between intrinsic or extrinsic values).

Now proving others hold life to be of intrinsic value works in a slightly different way: 1) First you assume they are not radically different. Since supposing radical difference is spurrious. 2) You can accept their testimony, as claims to value are ordinary claims and can be taken at face value(as they do not conflict with any background knowledge and actually make it up.) 3) Their behavior. Human beings seem to be against any unecessary taking of human life in principle. They act on this principle and it's thus safer to assume they value human life rather then assume they are engaged in an elaborate deception.

If he brings put counter-examples like sociopaths, point to how they are exceptions, most likely based on different brain structures.

If he points to the holocaust and such, remind him that the perpetrators had to act under a falsehood, a certain rationale. Hitler didn't say "Kill Jews because murder is fun and life is of no value", Hitler said "Kill Jews because they are monsters". Falsehoods which have been disproven.

Lastly realize human life though of intrinsic value, is not absolute. We have the concept of killing for self-defense for example. It is merely a value we generally hold to all things being equal, this allows you to point out that exceptions he or she brings up are just that: exceptions.

Like for example people like to avoid being cut, such a claim is not disproven by finding a handful of masochists that believe cutting feels good or self-mutilating priests that believe cutting themselves will earn them heavenly rewards nor cutting off your arm to stop an infection: the rule to avoid cutting is a general one and can be outweighed under extreme circumstances.

Vandrare

Primal:
something doesn't have to make you feel good to make it valuable though, eg. i value honestly from people, even if their honesty makes me feel crap....

King Rat

How about modifying your assertion from "human" life having intrinsic value, to just life having intrinsic value. Since natural selection has for some reason selected in favor of life (seemingly contrary to what little I know about the laws of thermodynamics). That would imbue intrinsic value to life for two reasons.

1. Life on Earth is an aberration and we are alone in the universe. This places an incredibly high intrinsic value on the rarity of life here on Earth.

2. Life is common across the entire cosmos. This suggests that the rise of life is universally selected for and more preferable than the absence of life.

Feel free to pick apart my assertions at will.

DRFseven

Many of you don't seem to understand what intrinsic means. To say something has no intrinsic value does NOT imply it is not valuable. Something is intrinsic to a thing if it is inherent in that thing; it cannot exist as a result of the relationship between that thing and something else. In contrast, something could be logically described as "intrinsically wooden" or "intrinsically machine-like" because the wooden-ness or the machine-likeness is inherent in the thing and is not a result of the thing's relationship with someone else (such as a valuer).

It seems the problem many are having is that they feel to deny intrinsic value to human life is to deny value at all, which is not the case. The problem is with the word "value"; not with life. Value is a term that NECESSARILY involves the relationship between a thing and a valuer. In order for valuation to occur, there must be a valuer.

Read bd-from-kg's post; "intrinsic value" is a meaningless term; nothing possesses value, rather, things are valued by individuals. As bd said, something cannot be "intrinsically valuable" any more than it can be "intrinsically close" or "intrinsically west".

King Rat

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding when there would ever NOT be a "valuer." If there is no one to value a thing then there is no discussion, no value, and no point. As far as we know, we are the only things in this universe that are intelligent and capable of valuing things. There is no other point of view.

What intelligent point of view is there that does not place value on things?

DRFseven

Hi, King Rat; several points. One, even if there were ALWAYS a valuer (which is not the case), the value would not be inherent in "life", the evaluation would be occuring as a perception or feeling of the valuer, not in the living organism being valued.

Two, we don't value all life at all times. Bacterial infections are "life"; so are human serial killers and rabid skunks. Most of us value certain human lives above others (family lives, for instance). And don't forget, a great many people don't value some people at all, and some don't value any, including themselves.

Others, besides humans, are certainly capable of valuing. My friendly, good-natured Golden Retriever values people in general, our family in particular, other dogs, meat treats, swimming, and other activities. Just because he has no words doesn't mean everything is valueless to him, as is evident in his eager anticipation at seeing signs that something he obviously values highly is about to occur. Some things rate a mild wave of the tail, with others (such as seeing the backpacks come out of the closet), he's compelled to leap about with excitement.

Do you get what I'm saying? Even if I value all human life and oppose the death penalty on those grounds, that value is not INTRINSIC value, because values are always EXTRINSIC. Even if EVERYONE were to value all human life, the evaluations would be extrinsic affairs. It would be the same if everyone were to value aluminum garden rakes over steel ones; the values would not be intrinsic to the rakes; they would be perceptions of those who were evaluating the rakes. The metals would be intrinsic to the rakes.

King Rat

I'm with ya. I understand the intrinsic and extrinsic. I'm just wondering if it is a moot argument. If there is always a "valuer" then it is an unreal situation when there wouldn't be value attached to an item. If there is no "valuer" then it is purely conjecture that something would be without value.

I have no problem with conjecture, I just want to know where you are coming from.

DRFseven

OK, but the original question was about intrinsic value, which doesn't exist. If it had asked about "constant value" or "high value" or something, I might have said that maybe that could be the case. I think that it is possible for all human life to theoretically have value, but I don't know about practically. For instance, I might say that I value every person ever born, but, on the other hand, I am unaware of the existence of most people. Every day children die who were always liabilities; who were never valued at all by anyone, except in the sort of abstract sense of someone like myself who claims to value everyone. Can I really value someone I don't even know exists? And I'm sure there are people, even on this forum, who say they DO NOT value most peoples' lives.