[Goranhammer]

Didn't I do that with my first post?

I think you're trying to validate yourself because I feel that you don't have as much value as a more intelligent, harder-working member of the financial world.

[Ixa]

Didn't I do that with my first post?

I am speaking of the reasoning behind the first principles which you
adduce. I am starting to suspect that you have no reasonings behind
them (and this is not surprising at all), i.e., that your principles are
undeduced, irrational, dogmatically asserted preconceived affirmations.

I think you're trying to validate yourself because I feel that you don't have as much value as a more intelligent, harder-working member of the financial world.

Unable to produce your reasoning, you were forced to make yet another
ad hominem attack.

[Goranhammer]

That was not an attack, it was just a basic self-truth in my eyes. In the measuring stick that is my argument, you wouldn't have the value of a more successful member of society. This is not directed at you because of your name, this is directed at you because of your social status, nothing more.

[Ixa]

That was not an attack, it was just a basic self-truth in my eyes. In the measuring stick that is my argument, you wouldn't have the value of a more successful member of society. This is not directed at you because of your name, this is directed at you because of your social status, nothing more.

Let us see your reasoning.

[GandalfTheGrey]

This thread is oh so close to ending. Goran and Ix, if you want to chat, go on MSN, otherwise post something worthwhile

[Liberal]

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. The human life is preciouse. It cannot be evaluated, it cannot be valued by any other criteria. Human life IS THE CRITERIA. The right to live and to live free is the highest value that exists.

[Ixa]

It cannot be evaluated, it cannot be valued by any other criteria. Human life IS THE CRITERIA.

An interesting idea. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

The right to live and to live free is the highest value that exists.

I should also like to see proof of this. I believe B.F. Skinner entirely
refutes the idea of "living free".

[SpiderMonkey]

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. The human life is preciouse. It cannot be evaluated, it cannot be valued by any other criteria. Human life IS THE CRITERIA. The right to live and to live free is the highest value that exists.

Ok, I see this as an opportunity to salvage this thread.

You seem to imply that human life is so valuable as to be beyond valuable - i.e that if you were to apply a numeric value to life it would be infinite. This poses problems.

The loaf of bread situation I mentioned above is an example. In any situation where one person must die so that another can live, then the value of life becomes an important question and claiming all life is infinitely valuable is paradoxical - because it prevents you from making the descision to save a life.

High minded idealism such as you propose is a luxury - it cannot be put into practice by a person under pressure.

[Goranhammer]

I don't understand....you're refuting statements about human life being beyond measure, then you do it when I say it has a finite, but scale-based value. Exactly which way do you see it? And trust me, I'll spare you the "care to prove your statement?" crap you oh-so-love to say. Not that it's even possible in a topic under Morals and Ethics.

[SpiderMonkey]

I don't understand....you're refuting statements about human life being beyond measure, then you do it when I say it has a finite, but scale-based value. Exactly which way do you see it? And trust me, I'll spare you the "care to prove your statement?" crap you oh-so-love to say. Not that it's even possible in a topic under Morals and Ethics.

Which is exactly the reason I don't have a firm position on this. I can argue against human life having infinite value, and against it having finite value. I personally don't have a solution to the problem of putting a value on life, so I don't as yet have my personal ethics set in stone.

Mostly I just go on my gut instinct of whats 'right'.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I feel it's simple. The more someone contributes to society, the more valuable they are as a person.

This is balanced by the extent to which they draw upon societal resources-- and more keenly, by the active damage they do to society. Human life has no intrinsic value-- merely intrinsic potential which may or may not be demonstrated at some point. (And we are even inequal in this intrinsic potential.)

Of course, in a civilized society, I believe it's necessary to tolerate a pretty broad disparity between the benefits you provide and the resources you require. I have a much lower tolerance for those who intentionally destroy value or deprive others, however-- and believe society has a duty to exterminate those human lives.