[SolarCross]

Assuming you are human what do you believe is the objective value of human life?

[Potemkin]

Objective value? Zero. Nature mass-produces us and kills us off in equally huge numbers. And most individual humans are completely forgotten within a few decades of their death.

Subjective value? Infinite. I place more value on my own life than I do on pretty much anything else. This is unsurprising - I have, after all, been genetically programmed by three billion years of evolution to have a strong survival instinct. My continued existence matters to me.

The value of human life is therefore the value which human society collectively decides to place upon it. This, of course, varies over historical time and over geographical location.

[Heisenberg]

The value of human life is precisely $199.99.

[SolarCross]

Objective value? Zero. Nature mass-produces us and kills us off in equally huge numbers. And most individual humans are completely forgotten within a few decades of their death.

Subjective value? Infinite. I place more value on my own life than I do on pretty much anything else. This is unsurprising - I have, after all, been genetically programmed by three billion years of evolution to have a strong survival instinct. My continued existence matters to me.

The value of human life is therefore the value which human society collectively decides to place upon it. This, of course, varies over historical time and over geographical location.

Given you aren't the only one in society who holds his or her own life to be of infinite value subjectively doesn't that suggest you must choose option 3? "That human life is meat but we must act as if it is sacred for society to work". Won't your experience of life in society be too stressful if society considers you to be mere meat while you value your life infinitely? Consequently for you to function as a fine upstanding member of society don't you need society to assure you of your sacredness by not killing you on a whim?

[Potemkin]

Given you aren't the only one in society who holds his or her own life to be of infinite value subjectively doesn't that suggest you must choose option 3? "That human life is meat but we must act as if it is sacred for society to work". Won't your experience of life in society be too stressful if society considers you to be mere meat while you value your life infinitely? Consequently for you to function as a fine upstanding member of society don't you need society to assure you of your sacredness by not killing you on a whim?

Indeed, and this was precisely my point, which is why I used the word 'therefore'. Sorry I didn't make myself clearer.

[B0ycey]

Value? Compared to what?

My conclusion is similar to what Potemkin wrote, but I think it needs to be put in a different way.

*Your own life is complete value and without it, value has no meaning.

*Someone else's life is what you are prepared to sacrifice for it.

*To nature it is of convenience and easily disposable. So is valueless.

Each rule true but each has different values. So I will go with other.

[Pants-of-dog]

The poll options are not mutually exclusive.

[SolarCross]

So far everybody (except for those who wasted their vote on "other") has voted for 3 but no one has voted for 1 or 2, which is interesting. I guess no Christians have voted yet because 1 was made for them really.

[Albert]

Ehhh, Human life is special and sacred ......

What is wrong with you people

[SolarCross]

What is wrong with you people

Darwinism, basically.

[Albert]

How does evolution change the fact that life is sacred?

[Potemkin]

How does evolution change the fact that life is sacred?

Have you seen a nature programme recently, Albert?

[One Degree]

I went with ‘other’, but was strongly tempted to go with #3. We don’t really know enough to answer the question.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Delete.

[Victoribus Spolia]

How does evolution change the fact that life is sacred?

Because, if it were true, it would imply that human life is the result of random mutation and natural selection only, thus actual human life is the product of material causes, chance, and barbarity only. Such a system typically denies any divine sanction or ruling regarding human existence and man is no more special than amoebas or any other critter that develops by the same material process.

I am both an immaterialist and a Christian, so I fundamentally deny these notions.

Human life is not the product of random material conditions and natural selection, but by Divine sanction and thus its values or lack thereof is determined by God.

Man is made in the Image of God and Christ died for the world as a show of love. Thus, human life is both sacred and special.

I confess this boldly.

The fact that most communists (who claim to be so generous and loving to the poor) believe that human life is neither sacred nor special should give anyone pause, especially given their actual track record when it comes to ruling nations (Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, etc). In reality, given their worldview and anthropology, such results would be quite predictable.

the irony in the fact that communists and leftists claim to love the poor and enjoy denigrating right-wing Christians as cruel hypocrites should also be noted since statistics show that Christians, especially red-state American Christians, are arguably the most generous people in the world regarding charity and disaster relief.

This alone should be all one needs to know about the implications of valuing human life.

One up-side though is this: the most pro-life people (who value humans as special and sacred) also tend to have the highest birth-rates (pretty predictable given their views really). What this means is the future of mankind will invariably be in the hands of right-wing Christians (mostly in America, South America, and Sub-Saharan Africa) and Islamic fundamentalists in the middle east, north Africa, (and now) Europe.

The future of the world is going to look a bit like A.D. 1095 all things considered, which gives me tingles all over.

[SolarCross]

How does evolution change the fact that life is sacred?

Others have answered this pretty well but I'll throw in my opinion anyway. The evolution narrative doesn't put humans in a special place and gives us a backstory which contrives our nature substantially by dumb luck, so a reasonable conclusion to draw from it is that we are not special snowflakes just another kind of meat. That doesn't mean that the evolution narrative precludes seeing human life as sacred but that the most natural conclusion to draw from it is that human life is not sacred.

As someone with a bit of buddhist training I think the buddhists can probably absorb the evolution narrative and then still maintain all life is sacred which obviously would include humans. This is because buddhism could be classified as cheerful nihilism, a buddhist idea is that the universe doesn't owe you a single thing not even your life so the fact that you have a life however shit it may be is something you may as well appreciate. So it is not impossible have both evolution and sacred human life.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This is because buddhism could be classified as cheerful nihilism, a buddhist idea is that the universe doesn't owe you a single thing not even your life so the fact that you have a life however shit it may be is something you may as well appreciate. So it is not impossible have both evolution and sacred human life.

I don't see how this implies that life is sacred and special.

Technically a non-buddhist darwinist could say: "Well, you are the product of millions of years of evolution, random processes, and survival; you should really appreciate that you as an individual exist, it could have easily been otherwise."

That does not amount to a individual life being objectively valuable or sacred.

Its just a bunch of sentiment that irrationally pushes back against the reality that life is in fact meaningless and ultimately worthless.

[SolarCross]

I don't see how this implies that life is sacred and special.

Technically a non-buddhist darwinist could say: "Well, you are the product of millions of years of evolution, random processes, and survival; you should really appreciate that you as an individual exist, it could have easily been otherwise."

Let me be clear I do indeed think a non-buddhist darwinist could do that too.

That does not amount to a individual life being objectively valuable or sacred.

Its just a bunch of sentiment that irrationally pushes back against the reality that life is in fact meaningless and ultimately worthless.

I suppose that depends on what we mean by "sacred". We should probably have a definition we can agree on before getting into that.

I'll offer up an etymological look at the word just to confuse things even more...

https://www.etymonline.com/word/sacred

sacred (adj.)

late 14c., past-participle adjective from obsolete verb sacren "to make holy" (c. 1200), from Old French sacrer "consecrate, anoint, dedicate" (12c.) or directly from Latin sacrare "to make sacred, consecrate; hold sacred; immortalize; set apart, dedicate," from sacer (genitive sacri) "sacred, dedicated, holy, accursed," from Old Latin saceres, from PIE root *sak- "to sanctify." Buck groups it with Oscan sakrim, Umbrian sacra and calls it "a distinctive Italic group, without any clear outside connections." De Vaan has it from a PIE root *shnk- "to make sacred, sanctify," and finds cognates in Hittite šaklai "custom, rites," zankila "to fine, punish." Related: Sacredness.

The Latin nasalized form is sancire "make sacred, confirm, ratify, ordain." An Old English word for "sacred" was godcund. Sacred cow "object of Hindu veneration," is from 1891; figurative sense of "one who must not be criticized" is first recorded 1910, reflecting Western views of Hinduism. Sacred Heart "the heart of Jesus as an object of religious veneration" is from 1765.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Let me be clear I do indeed think a non-buddhist darwinist could do that too.

Well that is part of my criticism, Buddhism does not really rescue life from being meaningless, only individuals from believing such (which is not the more rational option).

Thus, if life is valuable and sacred, such is arbitrary human sentiment, it does not, however, follow from the premises of any real ontological or anthropological claims.

Thus, if a secularist (of any stripe) goes on a mass-murdering rampage that systematically devalues life, he is not acting inconsistent with his ontological-anthropology, but if a Christian does he is clearly violating such (unless He is given specific divine sanction to do so as an exception).

That is a big difference.

I suppose that depends on what we mean by "sacred". We should probably have a definition we can agree on before getting into that.

I'll offer up an etymological look at the word just to confuse things even more...

Lets keep it simpler than even that, WHY should I value my life or someone else's life as a Darwinist? Why should I appreciate being alive at all?

Please tell me.

Feel free to explain the Buddhist explanation as well.

[Hong Wu]

Buddhism can be pretty confusing (and debated) in this area since in Buddhism there is generally no soul (which is pretty unique among religions) yet there is still something that gets reincarnated and so-on, so how to distinguish this from a soul gets confusing. My best understanding of it is that the Buddha-nature is an unconditioned mode of being and what people view as their "soul" is really just a ball of karma that has yet to unravel; if someone succeeds in becoming a Buddha, since it is an unconditioned (e.g., transcendent) mode of being, perhaps every Buddha is the same as every other Buddha? This would mean that even the soul is a delusion, there is just blissful Buddha-nature and there is karma.

More specific to the thread, perhaps life is valuable in Buddhism because it is an event that can resolve karma. This resolution of karma either stops, or enters a different stage, once someone is dead.