Is one human life worth more than another?

[Undertoad]

IP is from Vietnam = new model spammer

[xoxoxoBruce]

I voted troll.

[capnhowdy]

sproll

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Returning to topic: A faithful man could say, "God only knows," considering that man cannot. I think he'd be speaking no worse nonsense than anyone else.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by sean

I despise religion in all its manifestations*. . .

*Just want to add, I'm sorry about any offense this statement causes. I realise it's unfair and unreasonable. I know religion is important to many people, including some people I care about. I'm leaving it in as a declaration of bias.

Right off I would immediately remark, "You despise what you've been told about it." The unchurched very often display a depth of ignorance about religion and its manifestations that would scare a bathyscaphe. Where do you find the slogan Ignorance Is Strength again -- and who benefits in strength from that ignorance? Are you sure you'd want them benefiting?

Any system or organization can be gamed by any grifter for any reason. This does not in itself devalue the system or organization; it just illustrates the Biblical remark that "the love of money is the root of all evil." If the Bible had spoken of addictions in other than the Vulgate Latin sense (phrases like flammis acribus addictis), they'd have gotten in there too.

[sean]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Right off I would immediately remark, "You despise what you've been told about it." The unchurched very often display a depth of ignorance about religion and its manifestations that would scare a bathyscaphe. Where do you find the slogan Ignorance Is Strength again -- and who benefits in strength from that ignorance? Are you sure you'd want them benefiting?

No, not told, churched. I have deep but informed arguments with religion. Of the Christian virtues --faith, hope and charity-- only charity comes anywhere near a virtue in my estimation. Faith and hope are insidious vices.

In their book Should the baby live?, Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer examine the question that frames this thread: "Is one human life worth more than another?". They show how an intuitive answer to this question begs an assertion of the 'sanctity' of life.

This ideologically inspired slight of hand hinges on two separate meanings of the term 'worth'; the first an objective accounting of the value of a life, the second a subjective reality; the quality of a life.

My position is that the quality of a life may sometimes be less than the quality of any life, and that the courage to act on this conclusion by ending a life is inspired by comprehension of (paradoxically) the 'worth' of that life in the first sense. That comprehension goes far beyond cant and dogma.

Sometimes letting a baby die is an act of love. It isn't an easy option, and the suggestion that it might be is a gross insult to those people who have faced such a choice.

[DanaC]

'Unchurched': One of the problems with understanding 'across the divide' is that whilst a majority of the faithful have never experienced atheism; the majority of atheists will have experienced faith. I think this usually makes it easier for an atheist to understand what it is to have faith, than for the faithful to understand what a lack of faith might feel like.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by DanaC

'Unchurched': One of the problems with understanding 'across the divide' is that whilst a majority of the faithful have never experienced atheism; the majority of atheists will have experienced faith. I think this usually makes it easier for an atheist to understand what it is to have faith, than for the faithful to understand what a lack of faith might feel like.

I so wanted to find a fishing emoticon where as the can of worms was hanging from the hook.