I figure that an inherency test for human value must include complete objective and subjective value with no margin of error on either side or both sides in tandem. Value, in short, constitutes that which is selected. Inherent value constitutes that which is always selected or never de-selected. Inherent human value would by that which is never de-selected of or by a human or human or anything outside of a human - with respect to a human.
The question of whether a human is inherently valuable or whether they can work to embody inherent value, seem to be open ended questions. But, I want to submit a test that if passed, IMO, measures inherent value. Can it be passed? That’s it’s own question. The debate here is whether or not it actually measures what it claims to measure… namely: inherent human value. aka. You are an inherently valuable human being.
Now, before listing the 3 conditions, I want to be clear, that while I have my suspicions of behaviors that will and will not pass the test… it strikes me that these are mere opinions compared to the idea that this test will ultimately determine which behaviors those are. I’d like to say, for example, that this test strains out delusion – but maybe possessng delusion is inherently valuable in humans – sounds like a contradiction – but that might be the result.
Condition 1: Tell anyone that you encounter or that you possibly can, “If you ever want me to kill myself for ANY reason, just say so, and I’ll do it.”. This is transparent de-selection.
De-selection under this condition is evidence that inherent value is not possessed, is not being translated.
Condition 2: Make it as easy as possible for someone to kill you without your knowledge without them having to confront you (as they do in condition 1). This is non-transparent de-selection.
De-Selection under this condition solidifies the two aspects with which existence de-selects you – either transparently or non-transparently. To not be de-selected by these conditions shows further evidence that you have inherent value and translate this value to existence at large. It also tests the cognition against both the intent and the inanimate – both, which are mechanisms at work in your possible de-selection.
Condition 3: Make it as easy as possible for others to de-select themselves, such that anything that would make them hesitate, were they to consider it, is addressed such that this tension is not clouding the inherency being sought. As little tension as possible.
If nobody de-selects themselves under your watch on condition 3, you have passed the final inherency test, and are thus inherently valuable and are translating inherent value as a being.
The purpose of this inherency test, is to reveal what is of inherent value both in body and intent. For example, people believe that they eat food to survive. What if you don’t even exist? What if eating food has little if anything to so with survival? How are these possible delusions weeded out of a mind that considers itself aware that it exists? That is the purpose of the inherency test. I will argue that this test does accomplish this goal, that it’s the only test capable of revealing value mentally in both absolute and subjective manners without any loophole for delusion or propoganda, or room to carve out a false belief.
In a manner of speaking, this is the solution to meta-ethics.