Cold Wind

I have been thinking lately. I do not believe that human life is of as great worth as our culture seems to make it out to be.

The most damning aspect, to me, is that no one can possibly be angry, hurt, humiliated, disgusted, or sad, if they are killed. You can care before you are killed, but not after. Therefore you lose nothing by being killed. In fact, I came to the conclusion that it's only wrong to kill Mr. X insofar as it would affect Mrs. Y. But, it is also only wrong to kill Mrs. Y insofar as it affects Mr. X.

Therefore the worth of our lives is dependent on those who care about us. Princess Di's life was worth far more than mine. Millions mourned her death. Perhaps twenty or thirty will mourn mine.

A terrifying thought for one such as myself, who hates depending on others, but I sincerely do not see how human life has any intrinsic value; its value, I believe, comes solely from the effect is has on other lives.

I realize this is a very hazy explanation. I hope to delve more into this topic in the future, after thinking about it some more. If there are any reading materials you could recommend that deal with this question, I'd like that.

Your thoughts, please?

randomsyllable

I would tend to believe. After all, to use the term apotheosis in its original concept, we are effectively non-existent after roughly three generations unless we leave behind some form of work to be remembered by. So therefore our effect on the society around us demonstrates or sets our value (within that society at least).

...or so I'm told ;p

-random

chiron64

Here's a quotation that may interest you. It's from Jack London's The Sea Wolf:

Ryanfire

It's true everything we percieve and sense is based on exterior forces.

Humans only pass on perceptions, knowledge, and intellect to each other. You are control of your purpose, meaning, and destiny in life. You define your self-worth. If being famous is the only way you can feel worthy, then you had better do something worthy of becoming famous for.

How can you justly rate the intrinsic value of life? Is it not the experience of life that justifies it's intrinsic value?
When you were a baby, people, places, objects, colors all had an amazing effect on you. The unknown and the mystery of life kept you in awe. Hearing music or picking up a phone to hear a dial tone for the first time was amazing.

Humans die young.. 100 years is really nothing in cosmological terms. I think death is the biggest issue. If we could stop or prevent death, we could redefine the purpose or intrinsic value of life.

Imagine living for 300 years...

Could you handle it?

Jamie_L

I beg to differ. You may not suffer anything after you are killed, but you lose everything. Existence, for you, is blinked out. That's what you lose.

Now, we can argue whether your personal existence is of significant worth to anyone else. However, I would say that to the individual, that existence is literally everything.

Jamie

Mageth

Therefore the worth of our lives is dependent on those who care about us. Princess Di's life was worth far more than mine. Millions mourned her death. Perhaps twenty or thirty will mourn mine.

I would disagree that merely the number of people that care about us or mourn us rates a person's worth.

You could argue that, if Princess Di would have lived, she could have had a positive effect and done much good for thousands if not millions more people than you probably ever will. In this sense, perhaps you could say that her life is worth more than yours.

But when she died, her children were left in a position such that they will not suffer much other than emotional loss. Is her life worth more than, say, the single mother in the ghetto who is the sole supporter of, and the only real hope of a good life for, her children?

I would say not.

Cold Wind

I am not discussing the feelings of the party of whose death we discuss here. I am discussing the value of life from a more objective standpoint. My argument is that the only reason it is bad for a person to die [let's say instantaneously and without pain] is because other people would be adversely affected. I am completely dismissing the idea that my death is bad for me. Therefore, with that out of the way, the way to evaluate how bad my death would be is how much others would be affected by it. In my case, very few would be. In the case of a famous and bandwagonly popular celebrity, MANY more would be. So where my argument leads to is, the celebrity's life is worth more than mine. That's the point I was trying to make. I wanted to hear it discussed. This is not about me feeling sorry for myself or needing to find value in my life. I am trying to be more objective and general.


These things are all true. However, kill that baby in its sleep with a lethal injection and it will not care a whit. It has lost nothing because the "it" no longer exists.

It is without basis to say that humans die young. Compared to the universe, yes. Compared to a fruit fly, no. There needs to be some objective basis to make that remark.

Yes [assuming I didn't deteriorate at the same rate as people do today, or even by age 120 I would basically be a mindless blob]

I do not agree, but this disagreement might be a matter of semantics. I lose nothing by being killed because there is no party that has anything to lose. It is meaningless to speak of "me" losing something after there is no longer a "me". And furthermore, even if I did lose something, it wouldn't matter in the least to me. That's the point I am making: that I could kill every single person on earth and none of them could possibly care.

I do not want to be killed tomorrow. However, if I were killed tomorrow, I couldn't care. It couldn't cause me any pain. And that is why, apart from the considerations of third parties, it is not morally wrong to kill someone quickly and without notice. This is what I am arguing.


You are pretty much making my point here, in that the worth of a life can only be evaluated by its effect on other humans. Let's extend your example.

Di is killed. Millions mourn.

Ghetto mom is killed. Her two kids are the only ones that care. They die. Who cares? -- apart from people mourning the loss of a life in general, and these people can be dismissed from the argument because they believe human life has intrinsic value and I am arguing that it doesn't?

To all: does this clarify my position somewhat? Thanks for the debate. This is somewhat of a radical position for myself, and I am interested in continuing the arguments.

DRFseven

Not to mention Mrs. X, who didn't even know of the affair between her husband and Mrs. Y.

Blankman

You lose consciousness. Even animals do not usually kill each other for no reason. It is inherently built into us, as well as most animals, that killing each other is not a productive behavior for survival.

The "worth" of a life must take into account those things which are lost when that life is gone. Such as emotional support, financial support, intellectual support, social ties, etc.

However, the worth or value of a life only matters to those around us for a very short period of time. Eventually, life has no value at all. Depreciation?

This isn't really relevant, but I thought you might like it.

Being Dead

I know that on my death, the atoms that have been my body and brain, and created my mind, will return to the universe. They'll stay around on Earth for millions of years, inhabiting the bodies of countless people and other organisms, but eventually, eons from now, they will return to the great engines of creation that formed them. The stars. When the earth is a sterile, charred rock, my body will be part of stars, planets, comets' tails and brightly shining nebulae. Some of me will briefly fuel a distant sun and be burnt into energy, and the photons that were once me will skim the edges of the universe, spiral into black holes, and maybe illuminate the face of a child looking at the night sky for the very first time. This is immortality. This is life and this is death. This is me.

(author unknown)

Jamie_L

Cold Wind:

Hmmm. Maybe this is a glass-half-empty/glass-half-full kind of arguement. Yes, once your life ends, there is no "you" to not have anything. On the flip side, however, prior to your death, you have an existence which can be extinguished.

Each life has a value to the rest of the world, this is true. And it is true that generally this value is independent from the value the simply existing has for that individual.

What I guess I take issue with is your extension of this concept into the realm of right-and-wrong morality. You are arguing that the ONLY measure of the morality of killing someone is this external worth. I say this does not fit my, or even a more general, notion of morality, and furthermore, that it should not.

Morality, to me, is a set of rules and guildelines that when followed serve the interest of the individuals in the society, as well as the society itself. A society that does not value the experience of existence of its individuals seems unlikely to be sustainable. People (most of them anyway) value their own existence. Therefore, any society they are going to live comfortably in, must reflect that value, or you're going to have problems.

I've got to run, or I'd go back and make some of that rambling clearer.

Edited to add:
This philosophy, if extended to a larger scale, becomes frightening. For instance, suppose no one, or very few people, find value in a particular race of human beings. Genocide could then be justified, because once you kill ALL members of that race, no one who remains alive is negatively impacted.

Likewise, it becomes more moral to murder and rob someone than to simply rob them. If you steal their stuff, then they remain alive to suffer the loss. If you kill them first, then they suffer no loss, because they are already dead. And, as long as no one else is impacted, its okay - i.e., it's perfectly acceptable to go around killing and robbing people as long as they don't have friends and relatives.

Extended to government, this philosohpy gives the government free reign to eliminate people as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Allow for some gray areas, and government can kill people and take their stuff so long as a greater number of people benefit from the act than suffer from the act.

And so on. A morality based on after-the-fact existence rather than on existence at the time of the act just doesn't work. At least, not the way most humans want it to work.

Jamie

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>