You’re opinion is just as good as anyone else’s, so if you accept the fact that there is excess human population, then you tell us what we should do about it.
I see the distinction, but unless I missed a memo and Revenant Threshold is the ultimate arbiter for the ethics of humankind, the larger point is whether or not we, as humans, decide (by fiat, consensus, edict, or coin-flip) what the value of human life is. I’d still like to hear what you think the alternatives are.
Whether or not it’s “worthy” is entirely subjective. My live is sacred to me; probably not so much to you. Collectively as a species we have proven over and over that we don’t consider human or any other kind of life sacred; our history is full of the killing and mutilation of innocent people merely because they got in the way/had the wrong god/skin color/lived in a spot we liked better. Killing is an evolutionary expedient.
Being a Christian, my answer is well known. Humans are made in the image of God, Q.E.D.
You apparently view this description as an accurate description of yourself and the people around you. As for me, I don’t do most of the things on that list, and neither do any of the people I know. That is to say, we don’t do the major offenses on that list. We may do the minor ones from time to time, but so what? Why obsess over trivial negatives when there are so many major positives?
I’m asking RT for his opinion on this matter for the purpose of exploring the consistency of his view. If you choose to disagree with him on that matter, that’s your business.
Either way, contrary to your claim, I most certainly was NOT asking for a consensus on whether we need a consensus or not.
KGS is the one who insisted that we need to get rid of some humans, not me. I was just asking him where we should start. This is not logically equivalent to agreeing that we do need to start culling the undesirables in the human population.
Relax. It’s an interesting philosophical question, not a statement on you as an individual. It isn’t about individuals at all, it’s about humans as a specie. If the Donner party taught us nothing else, it taught us that we will do just about anything to survive, including eat each other.
I’m not sure that’s a full answer. It could be argued that to be made in the image of God and yet reject that side of us and commit such bad acts is an even worse offense than if we were not. Simply being made in his image doesn’t alone necessarily imply nor confirm our elevation.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. Demigod, maybe. 
Now that you have twice ignored my question, I will presume that you do not, in fact, have any alternatives in mind.
That’ll teach me to show up at a circle-jerk without an invitation.
Look, I’ve got to be honest with you. Debating on these fora is tiresome enough, but when these challenges employ premises that come from left field, it’s hard to muster any enthusiam for answering them. My question was clearly directed toward Revenant Threshold and nobody else. When someone insists on treating it as an attempt to build consensus… well, it’s easy to see that the questioner’s train of attack is headed toward a precipice.
As I said, I was challenging the consistency of RT’s argument. You respond by dismissing my line of inquiry unless I could offer an alternative. Personally though, I think it’s perfectly valid to point out that someone’s argument is inconsistent or otherwise self-defeating, even if you don’t yet have a fully formed alternative at your fingertips.
And frankly, I think we do have an alternative… the intrinsic worth of each human being. It’s the principle that our founding Fathers recognized when they wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” Frankly, I agree; the intrinsic worth of a human being should be inherently self-evident. That’s why human life is so tragic, even when that person does not belong to our community, and even when we know nothing about that person.
So far, the only counter-argument offered has been that we need community fiat in order to protect human life. That’s not a valid rebuttal though, for it conflates two separate issues: what we deserve, and what we are capable of enforcing. Even if we had no ability to protect ourselves or our community, that would not mean that we are undeserving of life.
We pay lip service to the value of human life. We have abortion,murder,capital punishment and endless wars. We really do not value human life all that much. We just talk about it.
You seem to be disagreeing with the idea that we need community fiat, IOW a recognition of worth among many or a majority of people, in order to protect human life, but also saying that you can back up the alternate idea of inherent human life by saying that it is self-evident - a recognition of worth by people.
If you’re talking counter-arguments to the inherent human worth theory, then surely my statement that I don’t believe humans inherently have worth is itself a counter-argument, since it doesn’t appear to be self-evident to me? Moreover, I can’t speak for anyone else, but my argument was not only that community fiat is needed to protect life, but in the absense of or indeed with an alternate suggestion, community fiat itself provides worth, not just protects it.
NO. As I’ve said more than once now, I agree that we need community fiat in order to protect human life. I’m also pointing out that this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What people deserve is entirely different from what they can get in practice.
Humans are only special because they think they are. I suspect the rest of the universe couldnt give a shit.
Fair enough, and I apologize for the aggression.
I think we both agree on the existence of an ideal, but mine is decidedly less Platonic. Being somewhat fuzzy on the input of a Creator, I’d agree that “the intrinsic value of human life should be inherently self-evident,” in the sense of desirability—ought to be rather than is. By acting as though it were true, we may all stand to benefit. But the worth is still ultimately self-ascribed, and not a thing-in-itself.
Or more bluntly, what sinical brit said.
My mistake. Apologies.
I think my problem is you seem unimpressed with the idea of community fiat providing worth, as I understand you. Yet you’re willing to take self-evidency as perfectly acceptable evidence to support inherent human worth, so you would seem to put some measure of reasonability on the judging power of humans. If self-evidency is good evidence for inherent human worth, then surely that same good judgement would mean that community fiat is a reasonable place to look to judge worth?
I still disagree that it is, since inherent human worth is not evident to me. But it seems like that’s a logical progression.
No, it’s that the rest of the universe can’t give a shit, and that’s the difference.
Humans are mortal and know they are mortal. Thus, fear, and a self-centeredness about this life and how it will play out.