What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How much value do humans have? (1 Viewer)

Does a significantly disabled human have less value than a healthy highly intelligent animal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • No

    Votes: 26 66.7%
  • Sometimes

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • Total voters
    39
My first thought was that humans have approximately 7.25 units of value, and I haven't seen anything in this thread to cause me to change my mind.

 
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? 
Again, depends on what game you think we're playing and what the rules and scoring system are. I'm sure there are some simple rules for some people, whether that's based on race, sex, religion, income, whatever.

But, yes, I agree in most people's opinion the game is way too complicated to actually be able to calculate a score. To @GroveDiesel's 2nd question, though, are all these complexities irrelevant because everyone has the same value (score) or do some people score higher? If some do score higher, what kinds of things lead to those different scores?

 
Again, depends on what game you think we're playing and what the rules and scoring system are. I'm sure there are some simple rules for some people, whether that's based on race, sex, religion, income, whatever.

But, yes, I agree in most people's opinion the game is way too complicated to actually be able to calculate a score. To @GroveDiesel's 2nd question, though, are all these complexities irrelevant because everyone has the same value (score) or do some people score higher? If some do score higher, what kinds of things lead to those different scores?
Yes, there's the crux of the argument in my mind.  Assuming you do think value isn't equal for all people, then you have to lay out the rules for the game, as you call it.  I'm in violent agreement with you, lol

Edit:  I don't mean to say "you" as in YOU, I mean "you" as in "someone".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could argue that an animal in a species close to extinction has more value than an average human.  
Certainly, if one valued uniqueness. 

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;
I scanned the first two pages and won't be reading the entire thing (TLDR), but one does not need an absolute in order to come to some valuation.  

Let's take an extreme: murder. The act of murder is a immoral axiom. Why? Because it is in our individual and collective interest to not go around killing everyone. I recognize that I don't want to be killed - an innate self-preservation mechanism - and so do the majority of folks. Some people do kill, for various reasons. So, the majority of us put in place some basic rules, based on our individual and collective need for self-preservation, to ensure that folks don't go around killing each other.

I don't see where there's a need for a god in that scenario in order for it to be logical.

 
Good things don’t end in “ism”.  They end in “mania” or “teria” like sushimania or sushi-teria

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top