[SpiderMonkey]

It's generally assumed human life is 'precious', and most people leave it at that because they believe the sanctity of human life is a given. This is not an entirely unreasonable assumption as all people greatly value the only life they have direct experience of (their own).

However, it is more common that people sacrifice the lives of others than their own. In that case, the value of the life sacrificed is finite and definable. The value of a life is the amount of gain that life was sacrificed for.

This opens an ethical can of worms. People dare not ask the value of human life because to do so allows the violation of human life to be integrated into business and politics. Any answer to that question could be horribly abused by those wishing to justify crimes against humanity.

If, however, you are willing to explore the issue there are a number of interesting questions. Can there exist a system whereby the value of an individual human life is recognised as the same by everybody? Can it be argued that all human life has equal value, regardless of its value as perceived by others?

It can be argued that the value of human life is arbitarily low. If you have one loaf of bread and two starving men, such that you must give the bread to one man so he can live and let the other die, then the value of the human life you sacrificed is, materially, equal to the value of a loaf of bread.

It can be argued that the value of human life is infinite, because no material thing or experience can replace a life. However, following such an ethic requires extreme pacisfism which would be impossible to practice in the real world.

Thoughts?

[Warrior Monk]

Can there exist a system whereby the value of an individual human life is recognised as the same by everybody?

Yeah it's called Capitalism. Capitalism is the opposite of Fascism, Socialism, and Communism.

Can it be argued that all human life has equal value, regardless of its value as perceived by others?

Only in God-fearing Christian Capitalists societies. In fascist Socialist societies and in fascist Communist societies every life has unequal value. The Bolshevik politcal elites are priceless whereas the lives of the Proletariat and Bourgoisie are worth less than zero.

It can be argued that the value of human life is arbitarily low. If you have one loaf of bread and two starving men, such that you must give the bread to one man so he can live and let the other die, then the value of the human life you sacrificed is, materially, equal to the value of a loaf of bread.

This is a Socialist argument. Only people who hate life will argue this.

It can be argued that the value of human life is infinite, because no material thing or experience can replace a life.

This is the Absolute and immutable Truth.

However, following such an ethic requires extreme pacisfism which would be impossible to practice in the real world.

Not the case. If the value of every life is infinite than the value of two infinities (two Aleph sets) is greater than the value of one infinity (one Aleph set). E.g. if it is the case that by killing Arafat one can save thousands of innocent lives then it is one's moral duty to kill Arafat.

[SpiderMonkey]

Yeah it's called Capitalism. Capitalism is the opposite of Fascism, Socialism, and Communism.

Only in God-fearing Christian Capitalists societies. In fascist Socialist societies and in fascist Communist societies every life has unequal value. The Bolshevik politcal elites are priceless whereas the lives of the Proletariat and Bourgoisie are worth less than zero.

*yawn* does this have to end up another debate about cold war politics?

It can be argued that the value of human life is arbitarily low. If you have one loaf of bread and two starving men, such that you must give the bread to one man so he can live and let the other die, then the value of the human life you sacrificed is, materially, equal to the value of a loaf of bread.

This is a Socialist argument. Only people who hate life will argue this.

Yes, thats right, I hate life . What the hell does that have to do with the validity or not of my argument?

It can be argued that the value of human life is infinite, because no material thing or experience can replace a life.

This is the Absolute and immutable Truth.

Prove it.

However, following such an ethic requires extreme pacisfism which would be impossible to practice in the real world.

Not the case. If the value of ever life is infinite than the value of two infinities (two Aleph sets) is greater than the value of one infinity (one Aleph set). E.g. if it is the case that by killing Arafat one can save thousands of innocent lives then it is one's moral duty to kill Arafat.

'ever life'? Dodgy maths aside, are you seriously trying to argue that your bedtime stories can be used to draw up real-world ethics that aren't laughably primitve?

[Boondock Saint]

Spidey, ignore the monk, his cultish ravings are amusing at times and at other times only reinforce my desire to cleanse the world of religion ...

Now, onto your post ...

It's generally assumed human life is 'precious'

I would agree in the individual sense. The individual believe that their life is infinitly more important then all things. I think this is more an instinct then it is a higher thought concept. For example, a mother cat will risk injury to protect its kittens but if it becomes obvious that its life will end it will inevitably abandon its kittens and save itself. I would say the same goes for humans ... save the mother ... at all costs.

However, it is more common that people sacrifice the lives of others than their own.

I would actually disagree with this one.

How many people have actually sacrificed the lives of others as compared to how many people have actually sacrificed their lives for the 'greater good'?

Presidents, kings and other leaders are at times rather quick to risk the lives of the many ... for example our own Lord Farquad (Bush) whose general speach is 'many of you may not be coming back but that is a risk I am willing to take.'

Now ... the avg. trooper in the US has to be convinced that he/she is doing the right hting, indocrination. And thus ... the avg. trooper (which greatly outnumbers the politicians) are prepared to sacrifice their own lives for this 'greater good'.

In that case, the value of the life sacrificed is finite and definable. The value of a life is the amount of gain that life was sacrificed for.

To an outside observer yes. BUt to the individual the life is still invaluable. As we all know though, the beliefs of the individual matters little ... so I would say the value of life is relative to who you are asking and whose life we are talking about.

People dare not ask the value of human life because to do so allows the violation of human life to be integrated into business and politics.

I recall an episode of 'The Young Indiana Jones' ... this setting was WWI Africa. Young Mr. Jones found himself speaking with some European man about the African tradition of paying livestock for the death of another man. Now, Mr. Jones was appalled that they could put a value on the life of a human and that value was nothing more then some livestock ... but the European man pointed out 'millions of Europeans bleed the field every day, cut down by machine gun fire and no payment will be made to their families.' Demonstrating that actually putting a value on a human life and paying that value is less barbaric than claiming a lifes value is infinite while so willingly destroying such a plethora of lives and doing nothing to make amends for the loss.

Can it be argued that all human life has equal value, regardless of its value as perceived by others?

No of course not. Two traditions come to mind.

- Romans placing retarded babies on hilltops as opposed to raising them.

- Some Native American tribes, when member became too old to serve the tribe and became a burden he would leave to become one with nature (die).

This proves that a persons value is nothing more then their ability to provide a service to the masses. Now that ability might be farming, blacksmithing, fighting, art, leadership, entertainment or what have you ...

It can be argued that the value of human life is arbitarily low.

Of course it can. For example ...

- I would not hisitate if given the chance to place a bullet in Osama Bin Ladens skull, I would take pleasure in it. Now, as you can see the value of his life is extremely low according to me. But, one of his followers would gladly take that bullet for him therefore making the value of his life extremely high according to that follower. Once again ... the value of a humans life is relative to many factors.

It can be argued that the value of human life is infinite, because no material thing or experience can replace a life.

It can be true ... but at the same time many lives have been taken simply for the material thing they possessed, be it land, oil or a simple pair of new sneakers. I would also say that human life isnt that important because ... well ... there are so goat damn many of us.

I would also go further then that and actually say that all of mankind is nothing and that this rock called earth which we value so greatly is only relatively important and indeed in some contexts our entire galaxy means nothing.

So to summarize ...

Human life is relative to the context in which it is taken.

[SpiderMonkey]

It's generally assumed human life is 'precious'

I would agree in the individual sense. The individual believe that their life is infinitly more important then all things. I think this is more an instinct then it is a higher thought concept. For example, a mother cat will risk injury to protect its kittens but if it becomes obvious that its life will end it will inevitably abandon its kittens and save itself. I would say the same goes for humans ... save the mother ... at all costs.

Naturally. But this instinct does form the basis for many peoples supposedly rational beliefs.

However, it is more common that people sacrifice the lives of others than their own.

I would actually disagree with this one.

How many people have actually sacrificed the lives of others as compared to how many people have actually sacrificed their lives for the 'greater good'?

Presidents, kings and other leaders are at times rather quick to risk the lives of the many ... for example our own Lord Farquad (Bush) whose general speach is 'many of you may not be coming back but that is a risk I am willing to take.'

Now ... the avg. trooper in the US has to be convinced that he/she is doing the right hting, indocrination. And thus ... the avg. trooper (which greatly outnumbers the politicians) are prepared to sacrifice their own lives for this 'greater good'.

You don't need to sacrifice someones life directly. Death is being dealt out all over the world in our names - so we sacrifice those lives rather than leave the comfort of the culture that does it.

In that case, the value of the life sacrificed is finite and definable. The value of a life is the amount of gain that life was sacrificed for.

To an outside observer yes. BUt to the individual the life is still invaluable. As we all know though, the beliefs of the individual matters little ... so I would say the value of life is relative to who you are asking and whose life we are talking about.

But if you take that view, then deriving any kind of ethical or legal code other than 'might makes right' is pretty much impossible.

Can it be argued that all human life has equal value, regardless of its value as perceived by others?

No of course not. Two traditions come to mind.

- Romans placing retarded babies on hilltops as opposed to raising them.

- Some Native American tribes, when member became too old to serve the tribe and became a burden he would leave to become one with nature (die).

This proves that a persons value is nothing more then their ability to provide a service to the masses. Now that ability might be farming, blacksmithing, fighting, art, leadership, entertainment or what have you ...

But to those people themselves, their lives have immense material and spiritual value. If you consider how much a person values their own life as the absolute measure of its value, then it is possible all human life is equal in value.

It can be argued that the value of human life is arbitarily low.

Of course it can. For example ...

- I would not hisitate if given the chance to place a bullet in Osama Bin Ladens skull, I would take pleasure in it.

I'm not talking about specific people. I'm saying that my proof shows ANY human life, picked at random, can be shown to have arbitarily low value.

It can be argued that the value of human life is infinite, because no material thing or experience can replace a life.

It can be true ... but at the same time many lives have been taken simply for the material thing they possessed, be it land, oil or a simple pair of new sneakers. I would also say that human life isnt that important because ... well ... there are so goat damn many of us.

So you believe human value is a function of population size?

I would also go further then that and actually say that all of mankind is nothing and that this rock called earth which we value so greatly is only relatively important and indeed in some contexts our entire galaxy means nothing.

On a grand scale, yes. But we live on a human scale. Mankind is the most important thing there is to man.

So to summarize ...

Human life is relative to the context in which it is taken.

Thats one way of looking at it - but if you do then you start needing a mental function to determine the worth of another human being. More ethical worms out of the can.

[Boondock Saint]

Naturally. But this instinct does form the basis for many peoples supposedly rational beliefs.

Oh ... sure of course. But at the same time I would say that many people claim rational beliefs when really its just instinct.

You don't need to sacrifice someones life directly. Death is being dealt out all over the world in our names - so we sacrifice those lives rather than leave the comfort of the culture that does it.

I don't follow ... are you implying capitalism? And are you asserting that capitalism is a culture of death? Am I far off?

But if you take that view, then deriving any kind of ethical or legal code other than 'might makes right' is pretty much impossible.

Indeed. And I would say that all laws that we have derive from might makes right. Why is it illigal to kill another man? Because it is immoral. Why is it immoral? Because the state says so. Why does the state say so? Because it would disrupt the every day functions of the populace and cost the state money if it were not illigal. Now, we can talk about morals and right vs. wrong ... killing a man is wrong. This we are tought ... but why? Because the ruling class needs their workers in tact and concentrating on their jobs ... not vandettas.

Thus ... the states says 'killing another human is illigal OR ELSE' ... and of course the state also says 'the state may kill.'

So we know that making killing illigal has nothing to do with morals ... most laws imo derive from Hammurabis code ... which was put in place to bring order to society ... and indeed to put a value on human life and make people think twice before acting upon instinct. And Hammurabi didnt do it because he thought it was wrong to kill people ... no, it was disrupting society!

But to those people themselves, their lives have immense material and spiritual value. If you consider how much a person values their own life as the absolute measure of its value, then it is possible all human life is equal in value.

But that is assuming that all people value their lives ... which suicide shows us they do not. It would also assume that all people value their lives equal to all others ... which they do not. (an example of that would be a man willing to die to save another.) I would also like to point out that an individuals value of his/her own life is purely subjective with no ability to measure it therefore it has no real value ... as the value is purely a 'concept' and nothign more.

I'm not talking about specific people. I'm saying that my proof shows ANY human life, picked at random, can be shown to have arbitarily low value.

I agree.

So you believe human value is a function of population size?

A function? No ... but population size is a factor in judging the value of its people.

For example ... a village of 100 people losing 50 people would be catostrophic.

A city of 2 million people losing 50 people would be a pretty bad day but would hardly effect the city itself.

Therefore the value of the lives of these two locations is relative to the populations that make them up.

On a grand scale, yes. But we live on a human scale. Mankind is the most important thing there is to man.

Sorry, I didnt mean to go off topic ...

Thats one way of looking at it - but if you do then you start needing a mental function to determine the worth of another human being. More ethical worms out of the can.

Yes. A mental function.

Laws.

Hammurabi started this with his code and todays nation states continue this with their constitutions (or equivelent laws).

[Goranhammer]

I believe the "value" of someone's life is relative and proportionate to their achievements and accomplishments in life. This doesn't even have to be a financial assessment, it's quite simply a yardstick of what they did with their life.

A male is born a male. He doesn't become a "man" at 18. He has to prove himself. Maturity is not a birthright. Anyone who is "all talk, no action" I will proudly and vocally say is not worth a man who succeeds in goals he renders in life.

However, it is more common that people sacrifice the lives of others than their own. In that case, the value of the life sacrificed is finite and definable. The value of a life is the amount of gain that life was sacrificed for.

That's an incredibly condescending way to put it, I must admit. I doubt anyone is in favor of "sacrificing" lives. Hell, I'd love to live in a world where war, terrorism, and territorialism didn't exist. Unfortunately, this is not possible. Human nature denies this. We live in a world of over 6 billion people, and I assure you that there are wackos out there who are completely against peace of any kind.

If, however, you are willing to explore the issue there are a number of interesting questions. Can there exist a system whereby the value of an individual human life is recognised as the same by everybody? Can it be argued that all human life has equal value, regardless of its value as perceived by others?

I sure hope not, as I believe that all human life is NOT of equal value. Would I consider a man who was unemployed most of his life, accomplished nothing, or made no goals for himself equal to a man who worked hard everyday, provided for his family, and benefitted society? Hell no I wouldn't, and I'm proud to say that too. You don't "inherit" value at conception, you EARN it. I know this word is a burden for many people today, especially the youth, but it...in my eyes...is an absolute.

It can be argued that the value of human life is infinite, because no material thing or experience can replace a life.

On a level this is true. Every life has value, and it has the same value at birth. Everyone has potential at this stage of life. But in no way shape or form does this make the value constant. Someone who uses their potential will always be more useful, more "valuable", than someone who does not.

Action speaks louder than words. Anyone who disagrees is filling their heads with Nietzche propaganda bullshit.

[SpiderMonkey]

I believe the "value" of someone's life is relative and proportionate to their achievements and accomplishments in life. This doesn't even have to be a financial assessment, it's quite simply a yardstick of what they did with their life.

A male is born a male. He doesn't become a "man" at 18. He has to prove himself. Maturity is not a birthright. Anyone who is "all talk, no action" I will proudly and vocally say is not worth a man who succeeds in goals he renders in life.

But this rests entirely on your opinion of someones worth. Maybe you would say a poet who lives alone is worth less than a man who raises a family, but others might disagree.

Even if someone does have to prove their worth to you, does that mean that you would happy to see someone who hasn't proven their worth die for some amount of material gain?

That's an incredibly condescending way to put it, I must admit. I doubt anyone is in favor of "sacrificing" lives. Hell, I'd love to live in a world where war, terrorism, and territorialism didn't exist. Unfortunately, this is not possible. Human nature denies this. We live in a world of over 6 billion people, and I assure you that there are wackos out there who are completely against peace of any kind.

When I say sacrificing peoples lives - I mean the way we advocate violence done in our names as well as the rarer occasions when people actually kill people in person (as in a war).

I sure hope not, as I believe that all human life is NOT of equal value. Would I consider a man who was unemployed most of his life, accomplished nothing, or made no goals for himself equal to a man who worked hard everyday, provided for his family, and benefitted society? Hell no I wouldn't, and I'm proud to say that too. You don't "inherit" value at conception, you EARN it. I know this word is a burden for many people today, especially the youth, but it...in my eyes...is an absolute.

Again, your concept of worth is probably unique to you.

On a level this is true. Every life has value, and it has the same value at birth. Everyone has potential at this stage of life. But in no way shape or form does this make the value constant. Someone who uses their potential will always be more useful, more "valuable", than someone who does not.

So you are saying everyone starts being invaluble, but then becomes worth less as they squander each moment? At what point does the value of their life drop below the material value of their corpse?

Action speaks louder than words. Anyone who disagrees is filling their heads with Nietzche propaganda bullshit.

[oliver]

Spidermonkey

Although you can argue that the value of a human life is infinite this can surely be only in terms of matters/ objects that have little/no importance to anyone else.

- so one could argue that any one human life is more important than another of the millions (? no's) of galaxies in this universe or one of the infinite number of alternate universes in other dimensions.

Even in a pacifist society some lives will be more highly valued than others - for example the giving of medicine to the young in preference to the old.

However, in a valuation based purely within the confines of our world, any valuation is subjective to the valuer and there can be no universal cost.

In the animal kingdom, value is often seen to correspond to the proportion of DNA the two individual's share, and the potential cost of any loss. Therefore, animals with low birthrates and a high cost of raising young will value their offspring most highly i.e. Humans. Similarly brothers or sisters will be argued more highly than cousins.

If there were perhaps a commune of human clones, then it would be logical to value all human lives equally - although if there was only one loaf of bread this would be equally low.

Apart from biological valuation, there can be argued to be cultural valuation - for example the value attached to an orphan's life that induces the state to care for them. Perhaps this could be termed a moral valuation. However, this valuation will never (normally) be greater than a biological valuation.

In the case of self-sacrifice other then for family. One can perhaps argue that, primitive man in hunter gathering groups would have been foraging with a related group of hunters, and so instinct might be to sacrifice oneself for the protection of the group and its blood-lines as a whole. People who take great risks for others often say that it was an instinctive reaction. - this is definately more dubious though - i admit.

[unPerson1]

Yeah it's called Capitalism. Capitalism is the opposite of Fascism, Socialism, and Communism.

So an economic policy is the opposite of a government type? Genius.


What is life worth? That depends entirely on whose it is. My life is worth everything, because if it is terminated, the world is gone, as far as I am concerned, so my life must be preserved at all costs.
Other people - that depends on how important they are to my life. If my whole family was to die, that would adversely affect my life, which means the lives of my family members are very valuable.
Some person that I don't know and will never know of is completely unimportant to my life, so their life has almost no value, beyond the amount of labor they can do.

I see the world through my own life, which means it is the most important thing. Those people that affect my life are a notch down. Those people that do not affect my life are unimportant.

[Noumenon]

I think that value starts out at a fixed amount, which is the value of a human life. It then increases or decreases based on what I know about the person. I would save a person I don't know just because the fact that they are human makes them valuable to me. But if I did know them, or know of them, then the value will likely change. If they are a friend, I value their companionship in addition to their value as a human being. Therefore, if I had to choose between saving a person I don't know and saving a friend, I will save a friend. Their total value to me is greater than the person I don't know. On the other hand, if I knew a person as a enemy, their value would decrease. For example, a murderer's value to me is less than the value of a normal human life. Therefore I would save a person I don't know over a person I know to be a murderer. There are other factors included when determining a persons value to you, such as age, class, nationality, etc, but in the end it is all subjective. People will value their friends and family more simply because they like/love them and are dependent on them. It is foolish to say all people have equal value, because they never will. I don't think they should either. What kind of world would it be if we didn't value the relationships we have with others?

[SpiderMonkey]

Spidermonkey

Although you can argue that the value of a human life is infinite this can surely be only in terms of matters/ objects that have little/no importance to anyone else.

- so one could argue that any one human life is more important than another of the millions (? no's) of galaxies in this universe or one of the infinite number of alternate universes in other dimensions.

Even in a pacifist society some lives will be more highly valued than others - for example the giving of medicine to the young in preference to the old.

This is why I suggested not assigning value to life was impossible in practice.

However, in a valuation based purely within the confines of our world, any valuation is subjective to the valuer and there can be no universal cost.

In the animal kingdom, value is often seen to correspond to the proportion of DNA the two individual's share, and the potential cost of any loss. Therefore, animals with low birthrates and a high cost of raising young will value their offspring most highly i.e. Humans. Similarly brothers or sisters will be argued more highly than cousins.

If there were perhaps a commune of human clones, then it would be logical to value all human lives equally - although if there was only one loaf of bread this would be equally low.

What this amounts to, is that as soon as anyone is backed into a corner its every man for himself (and sometimes his relatives). Do you believe morality is a luxury?

Apart from biological valuation, there can be argued to be cultural valuation - for example the value attached to an orphan's life that induces the state to care for them. Perhaps this could be termed a moral valuation. However, this valuation will never (normally) be greater than a biological valuation.

An orphan can't have much of an existence, if he or she lives only to be an object of pity.

In the case of self-sacrifice other then for family. One can perhaps argue that, primitive man in hunter gathering groups would have been foraging with a related group of hunters, and so instinct might be to sacrifice oneself for the protection of the group and its blood-lines as a whole. People who take great risks for others often say that it was an instinctive reaction. - this is definately more dubious though - i admit.

If primitive man was relateed by blood to everyone he knew on a daily basis, you might assume (at a subconcious level) that your friends are relatives. Preserving your genes through a relative is the only evolutionary sound explaination for deliberate self-sacrifice.

[oliver]

What this amounts to, is that as soon as anyone is backed into a corner its every man for himself (and sometimes his relatives). Do you believe morality is a luxury?

Morality although not a luxury is an invention of society where strangers are invloved, and so if a sub-set of society disagrees then the 'luxury' can be abandoned. For example - did the concentration camp guards genuinely belive what they were doing was wrong - I doubt it.

To perscribe morality as a function any higher than that of social evolution would prevent any sin. Or at least the vast majority.

[SpiderMonkey]

Morality although not a luxury is an invention of society where strangers are invloved, and so if a sub-set of society disagrees then the 'luxury' can be abandoned. For example - did the concentration camp guards genuinely belive what they were doing was wrong - I doubt it.

To perscribe morality as a function any higher than that of social evolution would prevent any sin. Or at least the vast majority.

Surely it must be a luxury though - in the situation where a person has to choose one of two lives to save. No matter how 'good' a person is, they have to place a near infentesimal value on the life they end.

[Ixa]

Morality although not a luxury is an invention of society

Define "society".

To perscribe morality as a function any higher than that of social evolution would prevent any sin.

But why? Show us your reasoning.

[Goranhammer]

Ah hell, not another "if Kim Jong Il doesn't say it, I need 20 pages of evidence" argument....

[Ixa]

You are just frustrated by my questioning disposition.

[Goranhammer]

Oh no, I'm not frustrated. I just question your loyalties. In a discussion such as this, there is no "proof" one way or the other. It's all philosophical.

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

[SpiderMonkey]

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

Then you are in favour of abortion?

[Ixa]

Oh no, I'm not frustrated. I just question your loyalties. In a discussion such as this, there is no "proof" one way or the other. It's all philosophical.

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

An "interesting" statement. Show us your reasoning.