I ask this question because I have a moral dilemma that was raised by the abortion issue thread. Understandably, humans are known for their self-absorption, their vanity and their conceit, but really, besides our intelligence (debateable in many cases), what else elevates the human life to such unassailable heights in our minds? We kill, revile, abuse, demean, debase, insult, maim, torture, fight, harangue, dispossess, enslave, rape, curse and humiliate each other in so many ways that we cannot honestly prove that we actually hold any other human life in greater regard than ourselves. This is in addition to the abyssmal manner we treat every other living and non-living thing on this planet. If humans cannot respect anything 100% of the time, what makes us think that we humans have the right to decide who’s life is worth more than any other? BTW, I’m an atheist, so a deity’s will doesn’t wash with me.
<mod>
This is Great Debates material.
Moved. GQ > GD
</mod>
It is if we decide it is. It’s up to us.
Who’s this “we”? You got somebody in your pocket?
Well, I’ll admit to the insults; I do do that, but I take them too.
It doesn’t take religion to believe that the Golden Rule is a good thing.
Who is this “we” in question? The government? The nation? What if we decide that people of a certain age, race, or sexual orientation are not worthy of protection?
This is a serious question, mind you. If we are to consider whether human life is protected by mere community fiat, then I think we should explore the ramifications of such a claim.
The word sacred has a religious connotation. I assume that’s not really what you mean. What about the people who do value the lives and rights of others over their own? Are they really so rare? How many times have soldiers impulsively thrown themselves on granades to protect their buddies? Don’t you think that most parents would give their lives trying to save their children?
German teenagers in Munich lost their lives speaking out against Hitler in 1943.
John McCain did not take advantage of a chance to be released from imprisonment and torture because some of the men had been there longer than he and he felt strongly that they should be released first.
There are examples of courage and sacrifice around you everywhere. You just don’t know their stories.
And the hell of it is that sometimes the brave are cowards and sometimes the selfish give the last full measure.
What I’m saying is that humans have no worth beyond our (me, you, everyone, whomever) definition as such. Thankfully, in much of the world people place value in one another.
We think we’re most important because nobody else has yet told us otherwise. Is that good enough for you?
If you can name an animal anywhere that you suspect wouldn’t value the preservation of their species given the intelligence to understand the concept, I’d be impressed. It is the nature of evolution to encourage species to behave in their best interests.
Thanks for all the replies to my question. Admittedly, I should have been more specific when using the words “we” and “sacred”. By “we”, I mean humans, humanity, and by “sacred”, I mean “held in the highest regard” (my own definition, as I do not ascribe to a religious point of view).
So many times I have spoken to people who can hold diametrically opposed views on abortion and the death penalty, both which deal with their view of a human’s worth. Of course, that opens another can of worms…the death-row inmate may have brutally murdered someone, whereas the unborn is blameless and, you get the picture.
The comment about a species prefering the preservation of its own species, or at least behaving in a manner towards its preservation, doesn’t actually answer my question because animals can’t forsee the impact of their actions. Wolves don’t stop killing deer just because they notice that there are less and less deer. They keep killing the deer that they can bring down because they are hungry. Of course, when the deer population disappears, the wolves either move out of their territory to find more food, or they die off from starvation.
Humans ARE able to reason, but we still jeopardize our place in our families, societies, nations and world by doing some of the dumbest crap. Maybe it is because we can rationalize, or maybe we are under the thrall of emotions in too high of an extent to use our reasoning.
What the hell, I’m rambling, but I would still love to hear all of your opinions, it seems that there are some great thinkers out there!
Surely mere community fiat is the only thing we can use to protect human life? What are the alternatives?
I’m not saying it’s not worth looking at the ramifications, i’m just saying that it seems like a pretty hypothetical issue to address. We don’t really have any other options.
Community fiat may be required in order to protect human life, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether human life is worthy of protection, and that’s a separate matter altogether.
So is this the sort of thing that should simply be decided by fiat? If enough people gathered together and decided that people with dark skin should be treated like property, would that make it right?
There is an excess of human life on this planet. The excess population needs to be removed, somehow. If humans won’t do it, the planet will do it for us – via disease, war, earthquakes & tsunamis, etc. We’ll probably do okay if we can stabilize the growth rate at 8.5 billion people or so, but no higher.
The so-called “miracle of birth” is no miracle, it’s mere biology. It only feels like a “miracle” because of the endorphins & other brain chemicals present when a man & a woman conceive a new child. Abortion is necessary to keep our population under control, and even if you disagree with abortion, think of it this way…every single aborted fetus was aborted because it was unwanted. Why would you FORCE a woman to bear a child she doesn’t want? That fact alone starts off the child’s life with two strikes against it.
Okay, so which groups should we start with? You’ve already mentioned the unborn. After that, which groups should be culled off first?
Ohhhh, I have some ideas already.
No, it isn’t. Worth requires something to back up that worth; some reason for it, and community belief that it is worthy of protection is itself an example of that recognition.
In this case, the question is what standards do we have avaliable? What metrics exist that we can judge this by? I tend not to believe in universally set right and wrong, so that large group of people can’t affect things one way or the other. As a utilitarian I would say that no, a simple majority alone being happy with one state of affairs isn’t enough to make something good.
No, it doesn’t. Even the helpless deserve protection.
If you were in uncharted waters beyond the jurisdiction of any nation, and without anyone to protect you, would you be deserving of protection? I happen to think so, even if others decide otherwise.
Okay. How about intrinsic human worth, then?
Is that universally right?
I don’t mean by something to back it up a guy with a big stick, or the various evolutions of that. I mean there must be something behind it. You bring up intrinsic human worth; if that exists, then it isn’t worth just because we say it is, but because it is the nature of the universe that backs up that declaration of worth. Worth without anything to back it up just a word.
I don’t believe we have any intrinsic worth simply for being human.
It’s a belief of a universal truth, or perhaps lack of a universal truth. My phrasing was clearly lacking; I don’t mean that there are no truths, facts about the universe. Just that I don’t believe there is a moral system inherent in the universe as it is set up; there’s no right or wrong, morally, simply from the nature of existence. So yes, I believe my opinion is universally correct.
You’re asking us to come to a consensus on whether the value of human life should be decided by consensus?
Gee, I don’t know. What are the alternatives, again?
No, I’m asking Revenant Threshold whether the value of human life is merely a matter of consensus. See the difference?