Value of a human life?

[Heretical Rants]

Absolutely. Selfishness is a good thing!

[Tank]

What is your life worth to you, what is its value, to you and you alone? That's how much all human life is worth, no more and no less.

This seems rather selfish. Also, take for example a small child who is not yet able to value his/her own life. Can you simply say that because someone is not able to value themselves, then they have no value? Obviously, their worth is projected onto them by their parents or others.

Because I place such value on my life I place that same value on all life. If I had children their lives would be as valuable to me as my own life is.

I value the lives of all those who are not capable of valuing their own lives, like babies or the mentally disabled for example. All life is valuable to me.

As to the question of who would I try to rescue, my enemy or my dog, I would try to rescue my enemy first. I mean, who wants a dog that can't swim?

I understand what you were getting at now. I still rescue my dog though.  

[Tank]

Absolutely. Selfishness is a good thing!

That's an interesting thought. Why wouldn't somebody like Bill Gates have as many kids as he could? $10m for any women that would father a child, he could afford thousands!

[Shine]

Ethical Nihilistically speaking, if you take an axe and split a rock in two or if you take that axe and split someone else's head in two (even if they are a saint) it really isn't that much difference--morality is fictional.

Why in the absence of an absolute, supernatural standard of good must there necessarily be no standard by which to judge at all?  I don't understand why the application of various observable processes like human reason, social cohesion, and empathetic logic cannot serve as rational bases for moral judgments.

[The Black Jester]

Ethical Nihilistically speaking, if you take an axe and split a rock in two or if you take that axe and split someone else's head in two (even if they are a saint) it really isn't that much difference--morality is fictional.

Why in the absence of an absolute, supernatural standard of good must there necessarily be no standard by which to judge at all?  I don't understand why the application of various observable processes like human reason, social cohesion, and empathetic logic cannot serve as rational bases for moral judgments.

Well put. I attempted to make a similar point. Nihilists seem as much a slave to absolutist thinking as their religious counterparts. It seems primarily, to me, to evince a profound lack of imagination. There are any number of good rationales for ethical behavior, and sound moral calculus does not need to depend on a god. In fact, I would argue that terminating a moral standard in god suffers from the same difficulty as attempting to terminate existence in god. The question immediately arises, where does god get his moral standard? If an action receives its sanction soley by association with god, then the content of the action is irrelevant.  God may define as good whatever he wishes. I would never serve such a being, even if it did exist. If, on the other hand, there are actions god would never sanction because of the nature of the actions themselves, then there must in any case exist a standard of goodness external to this 'god person,' and why not go straight to the standard?

[Heretical Rants]

any women that would father a child

Whoa. That sounds intense.

[kaithiwilliam]

Hello

We are talking about the value of life in my English class, and tomorrow we are writing an essay on whether or not it is right to put a price on human life.
For example, when the World Trade center collapsed and all the people died, more money was given to the family of the stock broker than the family of the janitor.Do you think this is ok. Pleas tell me.Thank You
_____________________________
Essay

[pinkocommie]

Hello

We are talking about the value of life in my English class, and tomorrow we are writing an essay on whether or not it is right to put a price on human life.
For example, when the World Trade center collapsed and all the people died, more money was given to the family of the stock broker than the family of the janitor.Do you think this is ok. Pleas tell me.Thank You
_____________________________
Essay

Did you post this question in multiple places?  Because I found it word for word on another site, which makes me wonder if this isn't spam.

http://www.qa02.com/biz/what-is-the-price-of-a-human-life.html (scroll halfway down)

[Ihateusernames]

Ethical Nihilistically speaking, if you take an axe and split a rock in two or if you take that axe and split someone else's head in two (even if they are a saint) it really isn't that much difference--morality is fictional.

Why in the absence of an absolute, supernatural standard of good must there necessarily be no standard by which to judge at all?  I don't understand why the application of various observable processes like human reason, social cohesion, and empathetic logic cannot serve as rational bases for moral judgments.

Well put. I attempted to make a similar point. Nihilists seem as much a slave to absolutist thinking as their religious counterparts. It seems primarily, to me, to evince a profound lack of imagination. There are any number of good rationales for ethical behavior, and sound moral calculus does not need to depend on a god. In fact, I would argue that terminating a moral standard in god suffers from the same difficulty as attempting to terminate existence in god. The question immediately arises, where does god get his moral standard? If an action receives its sanction soley by association with god, then the content of the action is irrelevant.  God may define as good whatever he wishes. I would never serve such a being, even if it did exist. If, on the other hand, there are actions god would never sanction because of the nature of the actions themselves, then there must in any case exist a standard of goodness external to this 'god person,' and why not go straight to the standard?

Just so you know, you seem to have missed the point of this thread and instead attempted to argue against some ghost of an opposition that doesn't exist.  The question was, "Is there an inherent "sanctity" to a human life, and if so, how would we quantify or describe such an attribute? Any other input along these lines is welcome." Sure there are good rationals for attempting to force others to have "ethical behavior," however that isn't even close to answering the initial question--in fact it is, as I just said, missing the point of it completely.    If you honesty answer the initial question in the camp of "there is an inherent "sanctity" to human life"  utilizing any of the various atheistically based philosophies, I would love to hear how as I am rather confident that it isn't philosophically possible.

As the rest of your post, it really has no relevance to the initial question, and is a (rather poor) summary of a well known argument. I don't think there is much value to anyone in replying here.  I'd be glad to discuss it if you start a new thread though, as that would be a much more appropriate place.

And @Shine, the same goes toward your words... I wasn't implying that there is "no standard by which to judge at all"  I was implying that any standard we do judge by, atheistically speaking, is meaningless when it comes to the initial question.  You might think something has "worth" because some human deems it "worthy"  but that means nothing, as another human could come along and deem it "worthless" then is the worth non-existent?  What happens if a dog deems it worthless?  What makes a human's opinion matter more than a dogs?  or even at all?  What you speak of is at best a sort of extrinsic "sanctity" to human life, not inherent "sanctity"  so I'm not entirely sure of the relevance to this thread.

-Ihateusernames

[The Black Jester]

I don't think there is much value to anyone in replying here. I'd be glad to discuss it if you start a new thread though, as that would be a much more appropriate place.

This may be true, but I will reply in any case. First of all, I should apologize.  Several of my comments directed towards you were rude and dismissive, for which I am sorry.  I should not have responded in this way.

As for the subject matter of my posts, you made a rather sweeping statement to the effect that if morality has no inherent or absolute value, it must be a fiction, which seemed to me to imply that you were claiming there was no reason to be moral â€" as illustrated by your head-splitting example.  Seemed to warrant a reply, and Shine and I were not the only ones to do so.

But, if I have unintentionally hijacked this thread by discussing matters irrelevant to the initial question, I again apologize to you, and also to the other readers and posters.  If the etiquette is that I should have responded by starting a new thread, I can only beg patience for my ignorance of said etiquette.  I’m new here, and to forums in general.

And if I have displayed poor thinking through bad argument, or worse, “rather poor” summaries of other people’s arguments (of which I was ignorant), I am happy to learn better.  I am here not only to find community of a kind, but to sharpen my thinking skills.  I am very interested in the topic of morality, and definitely eager to learn from your perspective, as well as everyone else’s.  To that end, I will start another thread.  Here’s the link:


http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5123

[Ihateusernames]

I don't think there is much value to anyone in replying here. I'd be glad to discuss it if you start a new thread though, as that would be a much more appropriate place.

This may be true, but I will reply in any case. First of all, I should apologize.  Several of my comments directed towards you were rude and dismissive, for which I am sorry.  I should not have responded in this way.

As for the subject matter of my posts, you made a rather sweeping statement to the effect that if morality has no inherent or absolute value, it must be a fiction, which seemed to me to imply that you were claiming there was no reason to be moral â€" as illustrated by your head-splitting example.  Seemed to warrant a reply, and Shine and I were not the only ones to do so.

But, if I have unintentionally hijacked this thread by discussing matters irrelevant to the initial question, I again apologize to you, and also to the other readers and posters.  If the etiquette is that I should have responded by starting a new thread, I can only beg patience for my ignorance of said etiquette.  I’m new here, and to forums in general.

And if I have displayed poor thinking through bad argument, or worse, “rather poor” summaries of other people’s arguments (of which I was ignorant), I am happy to learn better.  I am here not only to find community of a kind, but to sharpen my thinking skills.  I am very interested in the topic of morality, and definitely eager to learn from your perspective, as well as everyone else’s.  To that end, I will start another thread.  Here’s the link:


http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5123

Meh... it is my turn to apologize.  I really shouldn't have used the (rather poor) that I did.  It wasn't entirely poor, just un-extrapolated on.  Meh anyway lets just all  :yay:

Anyway,  in regards to my 'rather sweeping statement to the effect that if morality has no inherent or absolute value' (atheistically speaking),  I stand by that--It just doesn't follow that there is no practical reason to be 'moral,' that's all : ).

[The Black Jester]

Absolutely, deal.  And thank you.  

 :yay:  

And I'm starting to see your point - paraphrasing Kant, perhaps you are awakening me from my dogmatic slumber...

[keithwdowd]

roflol

Why on earth do nihilists insist theirs is the only alternative to superstitious drivel?  I thought Nietzsche, as well as many other modern thinkers, thoroughly rebuffed them.

Actually isn't it quite the opposite? Nietzsche is a Nihilist by definition since the thrust underlying his philosophical doctrine is that absolute truth (including morality) does not exist. More importantly, however, is that this line of thinking (e.g., that we are all just a lattice of subatomic particles and nothing more) is something of a problem for atheism, at least as perceived by the general public, which has really stifled its spread as a social force and acceptable alternative to superstition and religion. But, I digress.

[The Black Jester]

Nietzsche is a Nihilist by definition since the thrust underlying his philosophical doctrine is that absolute truth (including morality) does not exist.

He had many, many, many protestations to the contrary.  However, you might argue that he was, "protesting too much."  My, admittedly limited, understanding of his philosophy was that, for him, Nihilism was an intensely personal, and yet universal, problem to be overcome.    That it could not be overcome until the strong individual confronted it, allowed Nihilism to destroy all "objective," received, past values, and afterward constructed thier own values on the levelled ground left behind.  Surrender to Nihilism, I think, meant suicide, philosophically and literally to Nietzsche, and it was not my sense that he intended to encourage such surrender.  I think it was to encourage those who came after to have the strength to create values like a work of art, despite the fact that all such values could be only personal interpretations, and to live by them.  To create one's own meaning.  But, as Ihateusernames has pointed out, this does not really seem to answer Nihilism's central thesis, that if all such values are relative, any one set is as good as any other.

[Ellainix]

Value is purely subjective.