How much value do humans have? (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

Reading some interesting stuff recently and I'm curious as to what the general consensus is.

 

[rockaction]

Yes. No. Easy vote.

Without God, I don't even know if you exist, and he gave us the animals. Pretty weird, pretty logically sound. Check Arthur Alan Leff for a more full description.

 

[rockaction]

Or a lawyer can quantify it, if you're seeking monetary value.

 

[RokNRole]

How do we define value?

 

[Brony]

How do we define value?

In dollars or pesos. 

 

[rockaction]

How do we define value?

And then do we re-evaluate the values?

Oooh. Trump card.

 

[GroveDiesel]

How do we define value?

People define it all sorts of ways. It's sort of the crux of the issue here.

 

[Osaurus]

MHGA?

 

[PIK95]

WTF?

 

[rockaction]

The use of the word "value" is indeed the real problem here. Are humans autonomous? "Are humans sacred," is the only question to ask? 

Let's get down to business. God vs. anti-God. That's the only logical answer.

Value is anti-God.  Sorry.  At its base level, society doesn't exist with values on humans. It exists because we consider ourselves sacred.  

 

[GroveDiesel]

The use of the word "value" is indeed the real problem here. Are humans autonomous? "Are humans sacred," is the only question to ask? 

Let's get down to business. God vs. anti-God. That's the only logical answer.

Value is anti-God.  Sorry.  At its base level, society doesn't exist with values on humans. It exists because we consider ourselves sacred.  

I don't think that, philosophically, the divine is required to make the argument for human exceptionalism.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/opinion/if-we-are-not-just-animals-what-are-we.html?ref=opinion&referer=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445514/human-exceptionalism-supported-new-york-times

 

[RokNRole]

If I had to pick anyone with the most value it would be Gates.

 

[Jayrod]

I don't think that, philosophically, the divine is required to make the argument for human exceptionalism.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/opinion/if-we-are-not-just-animals-what-are-we.html?ref=opinion&referer=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445514/human-exceptionalism-supported-new-york-times

Well it is a problem for naturalism.  In the strictest of terms, if all we have is the physical world then your answers to the poll have to be no/yes.

That article basically implies that because we can think abstractly, we are greater in value and not "just animals".  I also think the start of the article is a huge false assumption that gets ahead of itself and taints the rest of the article.  

Philosophers and theologians in the Christian tradition have regarded human beings as distinguished from the other animals by the presence within them of a divine spark. This inner source of illumination, the soul, can never be grasped from outside, and is in some way detached from the natural order, maybe taking wing for some supernatural place when the body collapses and dies.

Recent advances in genetics, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology have all but killed off that idea.

 

[rockaction]

I don't think that, philosophically, the divine is required to make the argument for human exceptionalism.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/opinion/if-we-are-not-just-animals-what-are-we.html?ref=opinion&referer=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445514/human-exceptionalism-supported-new-york-times

But is establishing all of this stuff "value?" That's the fundamental flaw, frankly.  Values can be re-evaluated and cave in on themselves. Anything else if up grabs unless there's a God and a system. 

And I'm not particularly religious, I just like language. 

To evaluate, to value, is something Allan Bloom pointed out was in contrast to absolutism, and absolutism is what gives humans "value" in the sense I'm using the term. 

You did ask a moral question, to a degree. I think a moral answer is warranted.  

 

[rockaction]

Well it is a problem for naturalism.  In the strictest of terms, if all we have is the physical world then your answers to the poll have to be no/yes.

That article basically implies that because we can think abstractly, we are greater in value and not "just animals".  I also think the start of the article is a huge false assumption that gets ahead of itself and taints the rest of the article.  

I agree. Ever read, "Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died" by Tom Wolfe? Hell of a read.  

 

[cockroach]

depends on how we set the baseline

 

[GroveDiesel]

Well it is a problem for naturalism.  In the strictest of terms, if all we have is the physical world then your answers to the poll have to be no/yes.

That article basically implies that because we can think abstractly, we are greater in value and not "just animals".  I also think the start of the article is a huge false assumption that gets ahead of itself and taints the rest of the article.  

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the article, I merely posted it to demonstrate that it's possible to argue for human exceptionalism without including the divine.

 

[mr. furley]

i'll wait for tim to weigh in

 

[rockaction]

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the article, I merely posted it to demonstrate that it's possible to argue for human exceptionalism without including the divine.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this. 

 

[Jayrod]

i'll wait for tim to weigh in

Yeah, he could settle this in a single post.

 

[wikkidpissah]

We are each of us, as possessors of the human cerebral cortex, the culmination of 4.5 billion years of earthly progress, God's divine plan, or both. Value is assigned, not innate, but i believe we are on a path of perfectability, for that is where the evidence points.

 

[rockaction]

We are each of us, as possessors of the human cerebral cortex, the culmination of 4.5 billion years of earthly progress, God's divine plan, or both. Value is assigned, not innate, but i believe we are on a path of perfectability, for that is where the evidence points.

Teleology is comforting, too.   

 

[PIK95]

If I had to pick anyone with the most value it would be Gates.

Antonio?  Hunter Henry has definitely surpassed him at this point.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Teleology is comforting, too.   

Labeling things, no matter how incorrectly, so one can know of it without learning from it, is even moreso.

 

[rockaction]

Labeling things, no matter how incorrectly, so one can know of it without learning from it, is even moreso.

Ah, I didn't mean to be rude. Isn't that how Hegel and Fukuyama describe the forward movement of progress and design?  

tel·e·ol·o·gy

ˌtelēˈäləjē,ˌtēlēˈäləjē/

noun


PHILOSOPHY


 

1. 
   
   
   
   the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.
   
   
   • 
     
     
     
     THEOLOGY
     the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
     
     
     
   
   
   
   
   

 

[wikkidpissah]

Ah, I didn't mean to be rude. Isn't that how Hegel and Fukuyama describe the forward movement of progress and design?  

Who you saying Fuku to, you stoopid Kant!

 

[shader]

How much value does anything have?  It depends on who you're talking to.

I'm sure some people may think humans have little value, in comparison to other animals.

Others think humans are extremely special and have a far greater value than any other living thing on the earth.

Then you have legal values.  If you kill a human, you will be in big trouble.  If you kill a cat, people will think you're really weird.  But no one will go to jail for it.

So yeah, a human life has more value from a legal standpoint.

So there's just no way to come to a conclusive answer.  It depends on who you ask.  

So to answer your question, I personally think humans have a far greater value than any animals.  

 

[GroveDiesel]

We are each of us, as possessors of the human cerebral cortex, the culmination of 4.5 billion years of earthly progress, God's divine plan, or both. Value is assigned, not innate, but i believe we are on a path of perfectability, for that is where the evidence points.

That's a fine general answer and somewhat answers question 1. I'm not sure that it answers question 2 though, which is more about taking the answer to question 1 and seeing what the practical application of that is.

 

[kface]

All life is valuable and care should be taken to ensure suffering is reduced and lives are not needlessly taken

 

[kface]

How much value does anything have?  It depends on who you're talking to.

I'm sure some people may think humans have little value, in comparison to other animals.

Others think humans are extremely special and have a far greater value than any other living thing on the earth.

Then you have legal values.  If you kill a human, you will be in big trouble.  If you kill a cat, people will think you're really weird.  But no one will go to jail for it.

So yeah, a human life has more value from a legal standpoint.

So there's just no way to come to a conclusive answer.  It depends on who you ask.  

So to answer your question, I personally think humans have a far greater value than any animals.  

I'm pretty sure a number of people in here cheered when trump suggested that killing innocents was part of the process of war.  

 

[rockaction]

Weird, though. Evolutionary psychology is scorned on the left when it comes to men and women but not to secular humanism? 

Nice dichotomy, though I understand it.  

 

[GroveDiesel]

How much value does anything have?  It depends on who you're talking to.

I'm sure some people may think humans have little value, in comparison to other animals.

Others think humans are extremely special and have a far greater value than any other living thing on the earth.

Then you have legal values.  If you kill a human, you will be in big trouble.  If you kill a cat, people will think you're really weird.  But no one will go to jail for it.

So yeah, a human life has more value from a legal standpoint.

So there's just no way to come to a conclusive answer.  It depends on who you ask.  

So to answer your question, I personally think humans have a far greater value than any animals.  

Yes, but the answers we come to as a collective have tremendous impact on who we are and what we do. It shapes our outlook, it shapes our behavior, it shapes our policy and it shapes who we become.

There is a tremendous push in certain circles towards a utilitarian viewpoint. It has already had a great deal of influence throughout the western world. Some of the world's foremost ethicists that are routinely quoted in all sorts of journals and newspapers, consulted by politicians and praised, believe strictly in a utilitarian view of the world. The impact of this worldview can not be overstated. It is one that, if commonly accepted and believed, changes the foundations of current western humanity.

 

[wikkidpissah]

That's a fine general answer and somewhat answers question 1. I'm not sure that it answers question 2 though, which is more about taking the answer to question 1 and seeing what the practical application of that is.

The innate value of the lame of any species is as food to keep the hounds away. Humans have chosen the soul as sacred, no matter the condition of the body, and value it thusly. I see the sense in either view, though i ally with the latter.

 

[Jayrod]

Weird, though. Evolutionary psychology is scorned on the left when it comes to men and women but not to secular humanism? 

Nice dichotomy, though I understand it.  

Religion does not hold a monopoly on hypocrisy.

 

[Thorpe]

You could argue that an animal in a species close to extinction has more value than an average human.  

 

[RokNRole]

Religion does not hold a monopoly on hypocrisy.

No but they do hold the high score

 

[jon_mx]

Value is largely dependent upon how they look in yoga pants. 

 

[wikkidpissah]

Religion does not hold a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Largely because their patent ran out.

 

[lakerstan]

The flip side is that humans are a virus causing destruction to a very nice little planet in a very average galaxy in a very large universe.

 

[Brony]

The flip side is that humans are a virus causing destruction to a very nice little planet in a very average galaxy in a very large universe.

It was an above average galaxy until you showed up around here bub. 

 

[dgreen]

depends on how we set the baseline

Exactly. Have to determine what game we are playing and what the rules and scoring system are. Then you can determine value. 

 

[wlwiles]

Exactly. Have to determine what game we are playing and what the rules and scoring system are. Then you can determine value. 

A scoring system would never be able to take into account all aspects of humanity.  Is it good vs. evil?  How much $$ you make?  $$ donated?  Lives affected?  It's arbitrary, and that's the point. 

I think we'd all agree that Abraham Lincoln was a valuable human being.  But what if it turns out he was also a wife beater? 

Or what if the disabled homeless bum on the street who breaks into cars and steals also happened to be the former helicopter pilot that delivered Seal Team Six to Bin Laden's house? 

 

[McGarnicle]

In the end every human will die just like every dog or cockroach, and the consequence to the universe will be the same. The more I pay attention to things like politics, pop culture, or even just this forum, the more appreciation I have for other species.

 

[joffer]

My dog over stranger

 

[Black Box]

I've decided that I have a ton of value. I'm still just trying to decide about the rest of you.

 

[McGarnicle]

Dear planet,

I've decided that I have a ton of value. I'm still just trying to decide about the rest of you.

Signed,

Humanity

 

 

[Bonzai]

But is establishing all of this stuff "value?" That's the fundamental flaw, frankly.  Values can be re-evaluated and cave in on themselves. Anything else if up grabs unless there's a God and a system. 

And I'm not particularly religious, I just like language. 

To evaluate, to value, is something Allan Bloom pointed out was in contrast to absolutism, and absolutism is what gives humans "value" in the sense I'm using the term. 

You did ask a moral question, to a degree. I think a moral answer is warranted.  

You're just kicking the can down the road.  Where does god get the value?

 

[rockaction]

You're just kicking the can down the road.  Where does god get the value?

From God, Bonzai. Otherwise there is no value. The problem with valuation is that there has to be an objective morality; without God, impossible.  

 

[joffer]

From God, Bonzai. Otherwise there is no value. The problem with valuation is that there has to be an objective morality; without God, impossible.  

wut

 

[rockaction]

wut

Without an objective God, nothing. Everything breaks down. Sorry. I'm as agnostic as you, but it doesn't matter. Logic demands it, if we agree on logic.  

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2724&context=dlj;