Happy Atheist Forum

Hi all, first time poster here. I know that I won't get a concensus on this, but I'd just like to get a feel for some opinions from a secular point of view. So what is a human life worth? Is it worth more than the life of a dog, for example?

I came upon this line of thinking after listening to the debate between Thunderf00t and Ray Comfort, where Ray asked TF whether he would save the life of his worst enemy or his dog if they were both drowning. TF said he would probably save his dog. This gave me some pause. I can see how this might be a vulnerable area for an atheist defense, and how a creationist critique such as this could garner support. 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.

Quote from: "freethinker329"Hi all, first time poster here. I know that I won't get a concensus on this, but I'd just like to get a feel for some opinions from a secular point of view. So what is a human life worth? Is it worth more than the life of a dog, for example?

I came upon this line of thinking after listening to the debate between Thunderf00t and Ray Comfort, where Ray asked TF whether he would save the life of his worst enemy or his dog if they were both drowning. TF said he would probably save his dog. This gave me some pause. I can see how this might be a vulnerable area for an atheist defense, and how a creationist critique such as this could garner support. 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.

Would you save a man who you know does bad things like killing people or would you save your dog? I would save my dog. I think that my dogs are way more valuable than say a serial killer and/or rapist. The human does a lot of damage while the dog does good.

I don't think that people are in a separate category to animals, so I can't really say that all people are more valuable than all other animals.

Mathematically, a life is worth the cost of taking it OR the cost of giving it birth and maintaining it for its (natural) duration.

That is a bit grim a standpoint to subscribe to though, so philosophically, a life is worth another life in my opinion. A human life is worth as much as the life of another human. Some things can increase or decrease that value though - I see a scientist's or a teacher's life as of more worth than that of a life-sentenced prisoner. That does not mean, however, that family and friends of the said prisoner should not value him more than a random scientist guy. So I guess what I am saying is that the value of human life is highly subjective and depends on who you are, whos life you are trying to put a price tag on and a multitude of other factors.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "freethinker329"Hi all, first time poster here. I know that I won't get a concensus on this, but I'd just like to get a feel for some opinions from a secular point of view. So what is a human life worth? Is it worth more than the life of a dog, for example?

I came upon this line of thinking after listening to the debate between Thunderf00t and Ray Comfort, where Ray asked TF whether he would save the life of his worst enemy or his dog if they were both drowning. TF said he would probably save his dog. This gave me some pause. I can see how this might be a vulnerable area for an atheist defense, and how a creationist critique such as this could garner support. 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.

Would you save a man who you know does bad things like killing people or would you save your dog? I would save my dog. I think that my dogs are way more valuable than say a serial killer and/or rapist. The human does a lot of damage while the dog does good.

I don't think that people are in a separate category to animals, so I can't really say that all people are more valuable than all other animals.

I agree with this.  I would probably save whichever creature seemed more worth saving and I can imagine several instances where a dog would be a more worthy entity to save than a person.  Though that's not to say that I value all dogs and all people the same - if it was the most awesome dog ever and the most awesome person ever, I would probably save the person over the dog.  But I'd feel really sad about it.

Is there an inherent "sanctity" to a human life... hmm...  If you are really interested in this topic you really only have two choices... Objective morality (which inevitably leads back to a deistic/theistic..etc based morality)  or ethical nihilism (The view atheistic thought will arrive at if cared to it's conclusions.)

There really is no way around it.  Humans either have worth through something/one endowing them with worth (theism/deism...etc), or they are just a complex accidental bunch of elements splushed together like every other material thing (atheism).  

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.   So in answer to your question, atheistically speaking, I'd probably think about saving the horrible person, so I could torture them for enjoyment before feeding them to my new dog as a punishment for putting me in that situation in the first place.  Getting a new dog really isn't very hard afterall.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Is there an inherent "sanctity" to a human life... hmm...  If you are really interested in this topic you really only have two choices... Objective morality (which inevitably leads back to a deistic/theistic..etc based morality)  or ethical nihilism (The view atheistic thought will arrive at if cared to it's conclusions.)

There really is no way around it.  Humans either have worth through something/one endowing them with worth (theism/deism...etc), or they are just a complex accidental bunch of elements splushed together like every other material thing (atheism).  

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.   So in answer to your question, atheistically speaking, I'd probably think about saving the horrible person, so I could torture them for enjoyment before feeding them to my new dog as a punishment for putting me in that situation in the first place.  Getting a new dog really isn't very hard afterall.

False Dichotomy. Try again.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Is there an inherent "sanctity" to a human life... hmm... If you are really interested in this topic you really only have two choices... Objective morality (which inevitably leads back to a deistic/theistic..etc based morality) or ethical nihilism (The view atheistic thought will arrive at if cared to it's conclusions.)

There really is no way around it. Humans either have worth through something/one endowing them with worth (theism/deism...etc), or they are just a complex accidental bunch of elements splushed together like every other material thing (atheism).

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. So in answer to your question, atheistically speaking, I'd probably think about saving the horrible person, so I could torture them for enjoyment before feeding them to my new dog as a punishment for putting me in that situation in the first place. Getting a new dog really isn't very hard afterall.

False Dichotomy. Try again.

 

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.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"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.

I may have been too rude there looking back on it, let me clarify my specific problems with the whole statement:

"The view atheistic thought will  arrive at if [carried] to it's conclusions." is not a decent enough explanation to show that these two things are all there is. Because more than the two things you mentioned could exist it is a false dichotomy. The reason I reject the dichotomy is the same reason as something that was said in the very same post: "Humans [...] have worth through something/one endowing them with worth[.]" Humans can endow humans with worth. There is at least one other option to show that the dichotomy is a false one.

The nihilism or god argument is extremely flawed. Plus, if I need to explain to another person why disproving one or two things doesn't make the thing you posit automatically true... I dunno, I guess I'll do it again. Defining what is real isn't some boxing match where you put two ideas into a ring and the one who fights better is the true one. Logic doesn't work that way. There are always more than two sides to everything while there is only one reality. I imagine each view on reality as lines extending out from a center making out a circle and if one draws a line through the circle to create just two sides to an issue, they're being very disingenuous.

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.

Quote from: "i_am_i"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.

What about one's spouse or children? Don't they have an opinion worth hearing?

Quote from: "i_am_i"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.

Quote from: "freethinker329"

Quote from: "i_am_i"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 think I understand what J is saying and I agree with it; that one values human life no more or less than one values one's own life, not that one is only as valuable as one's self-worth. If I've interpreted that correctly, I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

I'd save the enemy. My enemies are mostly good people.

Except for the enemies to humanity....

Quote from: "elliebean"I think I understand what J is saying and I agree with it; that one values human life no more or less than one values one's own life, not that one is only as valuable as one's self-worth. If I've interpreted that correctly, I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

You have interpreted very well, Ms. Ellie. Thank you.

To answer freethinker329, yes it's selfish!

When you fall in love, when you really want a job that you know is perfect for you, when you sometimes would rather just be alone, that's selfish!

If you're in a burning building and you need to find a way to get yourself out, I guarantee that all you're going to be thinking about is getting yourself out. Selfish!

What good are you to anyone if you don't first and foremost value your own life, your own self?

Absolutely. Selfishness is a good thing!

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "freethinker329"

Quote from: "i_am_i"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.  

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"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!

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Shine"

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Tank"any women that would father a child

Whoa. That sounds intense.

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 (http://www.oppapers.com)

Quote from: "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 (http://www.oppapers.com)

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)

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Shine"

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "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 : ).

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...

Quote from: "The Black Jester"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.

Quote from: "keithwdowd"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.

Value is purely subjective.

Quote from: "Ellainix"Value is purely subjective.

Agreed. But does this just degrade the measure or make it unreliable to the point where it becomes meaningless?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Ellainix"Value is purely subjective.

Agreed. But does this just degrade the measure or make it unreliable to the point where it becomes meaningless?

What it means to me, and I subscribe to this point of view, as stated on page one, is that setting a price tag on human life is somewhat like setting a price tag on something at an auction that starts with zero and ends with the highest bidder...

There is no universal value for a life - human or otherwise - just the personal value for those that life touches in some ways. And that can be from zero to more than one's own life.

Some things can increase or decrease that value though - I see a scientist's or a teacher's life as of more worth than that of a life-sentenced prisoner. :D  




________________
spam removed by admin

Quote from: "winli"Some things can increase or decrease that value though - I see a scientist's or a teacher's life as of more worth than that of a life-sentenced prisoner.

Yup. I did say that. Please use the quote system in the future though



_______________________
And put your signature in the signature space by ways of profile controls. Get rid of the ads though, if you are at least a semi-serious member.

Quote from: "winli"Where there is a will,there is a way! I believe! :headbang:



__________________
ed hardy shoes (http://www.edhardytime.com/)|pandora charms (http://www.panbeadssales.com/)ed hardy sale (http://www.edhardytime.com/)

I just reported this as spam.  Writing the same response (except for your choice in smiley) four times in four different threads with no explanation as to why your comment is at all relevant is spamming.  And, it's annoying.

*Wow, massive blockquote fail.  Edited to fix.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I just reported this as spam.  Writing the same response (except for your choice in smiley) four times in four different threads with no explanation as to why your comment is at all relevant is spamming.  And, it's annoying.

Quote from: "winli"Where there is a will,there is a way! I believe! :headbang:





__________________
ed hardy shoes (http://www.edhardytime.com/)|pandora charms (http://www.panbeadssales.com/)ed hardy sale (http://www.edhardytime.com/)

That make 2 reports and an unanswered PM asking for the links to be explained.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"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

What does "ethical nihilism" mean then if not a rejection of any standard by which to judge actions?  If you are accepting a standard by which to judge actions, then how can morality be entirely fictional?  I am not arguing that morality is not constructed by humans, but I think that there is a difference between construction and fabrication.

I also think that there is a difference between judging an action right or wrong and determining an object's worth; the worth of an object could influence a judgment regarding an action in relation to said object, but I still see the two as separate endeavors.  The issue mentioned with who and what determines worth seems to align with the problems inherent in purely relativistic morality in that contradictory opinions would seem to deliver contradictory determinations of worth if worth is truly determined by opinion alone.  The closest that I can wrap my mind around it is that worth is determined by social consensus, ideally with respect to a universal application of the standard in that every member would agree regardless of their position in relation to the standard.  I do not know if that is even possible, but I think that I am trying to express a fusion of utilitarianism with Kantian ethics.

*Edit: I just realized that there was a separate thread started.  Sorry for continuing the derailment; I fail at reading the thread through before posting.  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I just reported this as spam.  Writing the same response (except for your choice in smiley) four times in four different threads with no explanation as to why your comment is at all relevant is spamming.  And, it's annoying.

Quote from: "winli"Where there is a will,there is a way! I believe! :headbang:


That make 2 reports and an unanswered PM asking for the links to be explained.

I sent a pm asking if winli is a bot and said that if not then s/he has a day to remove all spam links from the posts.  So, remind me tomorrow if I need to ban it and have not done so.