After reading through these replies, I have come to the realization that the question “What is the value of human life?” is flawed. The question we are really trying to answer is “Why is it wrong to kill people?” We are assuming that the answer is “Because those lives have value.”
I would argue that this is not the best reason. The best reason not to kill people is the same reason not to hurt people. Because it’s cruel. Even a painless death is cruel because if given the choice, the person would have chosen to continue existing, rather than death. I would further argue that the extent of the cruelty is dependent on the being’s understanding of their own existence. Thus, the reason why we are more reluctant to kill apes and dolphins than we are to kill cattle is because we believe the more intelligent animals have a deeper self-awareness. And we are most reluctant to terminate the existance of humans, since we have the greatest understanding of what it means to stop existing.
Not to the same degree in any way we can discover.
—We are not talking about rights, but value.—
This is a tactic of mere misdirection. We are talking about the reasons one might value something. If we are not satisfied with the obvious answer (“because we feel like it”) then we are interested in some of the ways in which we can ground our value in the characteristics of the being. In this case we are talking about the moral value of life.
—Do human newborns have a greater capacity for interests then your garden variety dog?—
I don’t know. I would guess that they are roughly the same, and all other things equal, I wouldn’t kill or hurt either of them.
—I am not struggling—
You are using your own terminology inconsistently in order to avoid conclusions you don’t like.
—just giving an example of how the potential capacity of an individual is not fundamental to the value of a human life.—
You’re switching meanings as to what you mean by “value.” Value along some objective standard, or just in someone’s opinion?
—And we value the potential of the incapacitated for reasonns other than otheir capacities. My cousin is mentally handicapped. She has no less value to her family because she cannot learn to drive a car. Her potentials are boundless.—
You’re just falling back onto the “because we feel like it” answer. If that’s the case, what’s the point of having this discussion? Then a person or anything is valuable to whatever degree you decide to value it, and whatever potential you imagine. So what?
Who says that it’s wrong to kill people? Are you suggesting that it is always wrong to kill people? Is it even wrong to kill people that don’t want to die? What if those people are trying to kill you? I don’t see how a painless death would be wrong if it was the alternative to a painful existence and the person wanted to end their painful existence.
The extent of cruelty is dependent on the being’s understanding of their own existence? Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable to pull the plug on someone that is brain dead, in a coma, terminally ill? That would seem to contradict what you say about how it’s cruel to kill people or let them do it themselves.
That is why I started in this post with this line.
My answer way potential. And you countered with capacity to have interests at all. I came back with examples of things that have capacity to have interests. And that some of those interests are greater in the objective standard, ie; survival. You change it to capacity in general. My counter of mental incapacity does not lower the value of human life. My arguement about potential capacity is not counterintuitive to my assertion of general potential. Even though it may encompass the potential for capacity.
I don’t mean to be sensationalistic or snarky on this topic so I hope you don’t take the following as such. The chinese routinely eat dogs and consider them a delicacy. I sincerely want to know. Would it be roughly morally equivalent in your opinion if instead they ate newborns that had been given away by their mothers?
I’m not talking about about self-defense scenarios or ending a painful existence here, I’m just referring to your normal garden-variety murder. Besides, this question came out of the abortion debates, and obviously fetuses are not attacking anybody or living through painful suffering.
Brain dead with no chance of recovery? Yes, certainly. They’re already dead.
In a coma, or terminally ill? No way, what makes you think their understanding of their own existence has suddenly vanished? If a person in a coma had a choice between being given the chance to recover some day or death, they would choose recovery. You are denying them this choice, therefore it is cruel.
I would agree with you that fetuses aren’t attacking anyone in the way that you would think of a person coming after you with a weapon. Fetuses are totally reliant on another person for their survival though. If the developing pregnancy eventually turns into a child then and they end up with a life of poverty and abuse you wouldn’t consider that painful suffering? You wouldn’t consider it cruel to knowingly bring a child into a life that you knew would be filled with pain and suffering?
Yes, but given the choice, wouldn’t that person that was brain dead want to continue living? Are you saying it wouldn’t be cruel to end their existence? They can’t interact with anybody, they’re hooked up to feeding tubes and a breathing machine. They can’t do anything themselves, you think it’s OK to go ahead and pull the plug then?
What if the person in the coma were given only a 50% chance of coming out of it? What about a 20% chance? 1% then is it OK? I never said that someone that was in a coma or terminally ill wasn’t capable of understanding. I asked if you thought it was OK to kill them. The person that is terminally ill wants to checkout before their illness makes their life any worse. Would it be wrong to kill them?
No, because we don’t know that their life is going to be full of pain and suffering. People have come from all kinds of backgrounds and have lived wondeful fulfilling lives. You want to deny them that chance? “Let’s see here, your parents are pretty poor, and they don’t live in a very safe area. We better just kill you so that you won’t have to live through all that pain and suffering of growing up.” Now THAT’S cruel.
They don’t have a choice. They are brain dead. “But if they did…” Sorry, no they don’t, your hypothetical is irrelevant. No, it wouldn’t be cruel to end their existence because it has already ended. Yes, it’s OK to pull the plug. I don’t get what’s so difficult about this?
That’s where it gets difficult. In most situations, I feel the right thing to do would be to try to respect the person’s wishes, as if they were able to make the choice. Since they still have brain activity, this question is relevant, they are still existing as human life. Certainly the vast majority of people would choose to continue living and hope for recovery, unless they had a terminal illness or painful condition.
That is a whole different can-o-worms, and it is impossible to discuss without having a common religious background.
That is not true, because a human can create, which benefits the human race as a whole.
It is not wrong per se, but a hypothesis goes that if a tiger eats a human, it will acquire the taste of our flesh, and will eat more humans. Besides, it’s easier to hunt down humans. Thus, if a tiger eats human, it’s better off to kill it. It’s up to you whether to buy it.