Is one human life worth more than another?
I think this is one of the questions of life, and after a while of thought on the subject I cannot come up with a conclusion.
What do you think?
Yes. My life and the lives of my family and friends are worth more than the lives of complete strangers. Especially strangers who don't hold critical roles in society.
The life(i assume you mean the continuation of) that has more left is worth more.
An 11 year old is worth more than a 60 yr old.
What if the 11 year old was in a vegetative state or had an undetected disorder that would kill him in 10 years? And the 60 year old was, like, Einstein?
What if the 11 year old was a vegan or had some other undetected disorder that would kill him in 10 years? And the 60 year old was, like bacon, awesome?
edit for clarity
To whom? "Worth" requires an indirect object, some entity to that is it worth to.
Are all lives worth the same to me? No, like glatt said, the importance of lives moves outward from my immediate family, to friends, then local community, world. I would always choose the death of 1,000 strangers over the death of my daughter or son.
Are all lives worth the same to society as law? Sometimes. The law tries to view every life as equal, and treats punishment and restitution accordingly.
Are all lives worth the same to society as economy? Clearly not. The life of each person has economic weight derived from many things, including ability, risk, returned value to society, and yes, luck.
Are all lives worth the same to society as social support (medicine, welfare, etc.)? Ah. This is the great political question of our time. I'll pass.
There's no good universal answer to this question - it's too broad. You have to give a context, "for whom".
If you take the view that human life is sacred, that it is infinitely valuable, then all lives are equal.
infinity time 60 years of life left equals infinity
infinity times 1 year of life left equals infinity
So you can't hold the view that human life is sacred and then say "women and children first." Well, I suppose one could hold that view, but they would be wrong.
are you saying that this kind of question can't possibly be answered seriously?
cuz that's kind of what I was saying
It might be easy to gauge the worth of yourself and your loved ones.
But to measure the value of stranger's life, you must put yourself in their place.
That sounds good, right?
Okay, now put yourself in the place of a permanently braindead person being kept alive by machines. As that person, how much would you be able to figure your own life is worth?
Okay, now put yourself in the place of a miserable, self-loathing, drug addict, whose every day actions inidcate that they have given up on life. As that person, how much would you be able to figure your own life is worth?
This isn't working!
Okay, now put yourself in the place of a basically decent person, who commits many good acts and kind deeds, but whose own low self-esteem won't let them see their true value to society. Maybe this person has a chemical imbalance and is suicidal. As that person, how much would you be able to figure your own life is worth?
This definitely isn't working.
This has to be determined by an indifferent outisde source in order to make any sense.
So, how much is a human life worth to an impartial observer... let's say one who has no stake in the affairs of humanity?
Is it more or less than the life of a grub worm? Is it more or less than the life of a tree?
From one extreme to the other, you're never going to like the answer to this question.
Mine's worth more than yours. End of discussion.
Mine's worth more than all y'alls. :lol:
Mine's worth more than all y'alls. :lol:
Depends on who's buyin' and who's sellin' ;)
I can't find the direct quote, but monster once had a great line to the effect of, "All y'all can die in a fire if it means my baby has a 1 in 20 chance of being a little less hurt."
According to my dad my life is only worth $20. How much would your parent/spouse/sibling/children pay to get rid of you?
According to my dad my life is only worth $20. How much would your parent/spouse/sibling/children pay to get rid of you?
My mom always told me should would sell me to the gypsies - I assume bartering would be involved.
What anything is worth is always a matter of perspective. Lives are no different.
My parents never wanted to get rid of me.
You would need to clarify "life" and "worth". But yea, mine and my families is worth more than anyone else if it is being threatened by someone else. Then they lose. I win. Go life.
My parents admitted that I was adopted. But I kept coming back.
I've heard alternately that I was found in a cabbage patch, or under a rock. Maybe it was a rock in a cabbage patch.
I've heard alternately that I was found in a cabbage patch, or under a rock. Maybe it was a rock in a cabbage patch.
Nope, you were found in a cabbage patch and then sold in a store where families for some reason had fights over you.
I like your user name, by the way, Operation:Mindcrime and Warning are amazing :D
Sorry for the wording on the title, but I think everyone knows what I'm talking about.
Reading assignment: Crime and Punishment
My Mum was going to call the local children's home to take me away (I assume for free) if I didn't stop being such a spiteful little girl. Hmmmm, no complexes built there then.
I value people I love most of course. But otherwise, I believe all human life is equal. After all, the same random acts happen to all types of people - the lottery winning rapist and the devout tsunami victim, the hale and healthy reformed addict and the war veteran who gets his face smashed in for his pension.
It's only love that gives our lives any real distinction.
That and bacon.
Nope, you were found in a cabbage patch and then sold in a store where families for some reason had fights over you.
I like your user name, by the way, Operation:Mindcrime and Warning are amazing :D
Sorry for the wording on the title, but I think everyone knows what I'm talking about.
Aw, thanks and thanks! :o
It's only love that gives our lives any real distinction.
That and bacon.
Amen to that! Now pass over some of that bacon please...
Some of the shit that lives around my area need whacking
Most of them are scum who would steal the breath out of your lungs without a second thought..
Chav mothers with ugly Chav children that contribute fuck all to humanity they are just leeches that suck the system dry..
and cause havoc and mayhem throughout the housing estate..
(not that I'm bitter and twisted):D
Read "The Ones Who Walked Away From the Omelas" by Ursala K. LeGuin. Great story about this very subject. One of my favorite short stories.
My short answer.
No.
Some of the shit that lives around my area need whacking
Most of them are scum who would steal the breath out of your lungs without a second thought..
Chav mothers with ugly Chav children that contribute fuck all to humanity they are just leeches that suck the system dry..
and cause havoc and mayhem throughout the housing estate..
(not that I'm bitter and twisted):D
Are you sure you don't live in the US?
Are you sure you don't live in the US?
Nope couldn't spell extermination :D
Was just having a wee rant
My mom tried to marry me to a Syrian. I am sure a dowry was involved. So the real question for me is:
How many goats is one life worth over another? Not if.
Yes she regrets her actions now.........But since I am older and used up in their realm, and I am no longer a virgin- My mom would have to give a lot of goats to get rid of me....... I believe I am actually a commodity, but there is no convincing some crazy canadian syrian, possible terrorist, of this......The failure I believe, is that no one even tried. Being that he was probably an ugly loser that just didn't know how to talk to women, and has no station in my society.....I am of the "perspective" that he would in fact, owe me some goats just for inhaling any part my oxygen.
But that's perspectivism for you.
I think it was insane to be talking to my mom about how I am not going to go marry her neighbor's syrian son. The fact that I had to even have those conversations makes me insane. She had arranged my marriage. FAIL. lol!
But I still (secretly) wonder how many goats I am worth. How many goats does it take to marry me off anyway? :(
Cicero, I'll bid 5 goats AND a donkey for ya. :)
5 goats , a donkey And a Cow !!!
I'll see your 5 goats , a donkey and a Cow... and raise you one spastic chicken.
Fools.
Cicero is at least a ten-camel girl.
40 acres and a MULE?
If I had been feeling clever last night I would have started a poll.
don't be jealous, Cicero, but it seems Chelsea Clinton is worth 40 goats and 20 cows.
NAIROBI, Kenya - A Kenyan man's offer of 40 goats and 20 cows for Chelsea Clinton's hand in marriage may still be on the table — and Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised to convey the "very kind offer" to her daughter.
To laughter at a town hall meeting Thursday in Kenya, a reporter asked the U.S. Secretary of State if the Clintons had made a decision on the dowry offer.
After a pause, Clinton said, "My daughter is her own person, very independent, so I will convey this very kind offer."
In 2000, Godwin Kipkemoi Chepkurgor, an elected city councilor, wrote to then-president Bill Clinton through Kenya’s foreign minister, offering the animals in accordance with African tradition.
Tutu to officiate
"Had I succeeded in wooing Chelsea, I would have had a grand wedding," he told the East Africa Standard newspaper in an interview published in 2005. “I would have invited South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu to preside at the ceremony."
Chepkurgor said in 2005 that the letter prompted security checks on his friends and family. He was even called for a meeting at the Foreign Ministry in Nairobi, which he missed.
Clinton has denied rumors that her daughter, 29, is planning to get married this summer.
The offer is considered a generous one by Kenyan standards.
@ Zen :lol:
I wonder if they would have kept Hillary if we offered something similar. I would be good for part of that if they would keep her in Kenya.
I'll make you guys a deal.
I'll marry the first person that will round up and take all these cocks off my hands- those I seem to have no shortage of. :p
I've been thinking about this, and I've decided that there are definitely some people I'd pay less to save than others. All lives are worth something...it's just that some are worth more than others.
No, some are just worth more to others, than others.
My life means squat to Joe Schmoe. But Joe might dive into the water to save a solid gold baby because it's HIS solid gold baby.
My apologies to Jack Handey.
Yeah but it's all about me, so what I think is really the only relevant thought in this discussion. :)
I'll make you guys a deal.
I'll marry the first person that will round up and take all these cocks off my hands- those I seem to have no shortage of. :p
You have cocks on your hands? Lots of them?
Oi, Sheldon, paradise awaits.
Oh wait, you didn't fall for that 72 cocks as your eternal reward ploy, did you?
HA HA HA HA - Cic the terrorist! lol ... err haggis
All human life is worthless except in its service to
:fsm:
Only
:fsm:
can decide a human's worth
I wonder if they would have kept Hillary if we offered something similar. I would be good for part of that if they would keep her in Kenya.
Goats, schmoats.
You're talking herds of elephants there.
Is one human life worth more than another?
I think this is one of the questions of life, and after a while of thought on the subject I cannot come up with a conclusion.
What do you think?
I think this question needs to be contextualized. Are we talking in abstract terms or concrete? Is one life worth more than another to a particular person? Of course. Can one life be valued over another as a general principle? No.
Yes. My life and the lives of my family and friends are worth more than the lives of complete strangers. Especially strangers who don't hold critical roles in society.
This response from glatt is the intuitive one that occurs to most people, but if we are treating this as a problem of ethics rather than economics I think I agree with the philosopher Peter Singer.
Singer establishes what he calls an 'expanding circle of empathy' as one of the defining elements of human nature. It is natural to care for family, especially immediate family, and the evolutionary underpinnings of this behaviour are obvious. Similarly it's natural to favour compatriots and people with similar ethnic background over aliens, strangers and foreigners. We can easily observe the natural occurrence of xenophobia as well.
But what marks human nature as distinct from other species is progress from instinctive self interest to egalitarian universalism and the ability to feel the discomfort of strangers, of other races, and at some point, of other species. These ideas aren't completely novel, and most Buddhists would recognize them, but Singer has developed them in a rigorous way into a coherent ethical system.
Intuitively, most people judge negatively a person who deprives his or her own children in order to help others. This has actually been established in a number of surveys. But Singer asks quite reasonably, how can parents justify spending more on toys for their children than many families have to spend on the essentials of life? He makes a clear argument that this is unethical.
In other words, he says, it is unethical to value one's own children
so much more highly than those of strangers.
I think it's also worth considering what it is that glatt might consider a 'critical role in society'. Would that be the emergency care specialist that revives him after his heart attack? Or the gangsta rapper I'm listening to on my iPod?
Valuing people according to their role in society raises an interesting question about what kind of society we're talking about. Many western cultures have modeled themselves on imperial Rome, a violent, philistine, stratified, slave owning, misogynistic dictatorship. At the same time, we've all observed with mild curiosity the rapid extinction of a wondrous variety of pre-industrial cultures scattered across the globe that, often as not, reflect values of gentleness and communal harmony that Western culture is unlikely to ever be able to comprehend, let alone aspire to.
On top of all this, I think the first question to ask about how we value others is, how do we value ourselves?
I think this question needs to be contextualized. Are we talking in abstract terms or concrete? Is one life worth more than another to a particular person? Of course. Can one life be valued over another as a general principle? No.
This response from glatt is the intuitive one that occurs to most people, but if we are treating this as a problem of ethics rather than economics I think I agree with the philosopher Peter Singer.
Singer establishes what he calls an 'expanding circle of empathy' as one of the defining elements of human nature. It is natural to care for family, especially immediate family, and the evolutionary underpinnings of this behaviour are obvious. Similarly it's natural to favour compatriots and people with similar ethnic background over aliens, strangers and foreigners. We can easily observe the natural occurrence of xenophobia as well.
But what marks human nature as distinct from other species is progress from instinctive self interest to egalitarian universalism and the ability to feel the discomfort of strangers, of other races, and at some point, of other species. These ideas aren't completely novel, and most Buddhists would recognize them, but Singer has developed them in a rigorous way into a coherent ethical system.
Intuitively, most people judge negatively a person who deprives his or her own children in order to help others. This has actually been established in a number of surveys. But Singer asks quite reasonably, how can parents justify spending more on toys for their children than many families have to spend on the essentials of life? He makes a clear argument that this is unethical.
In other words, he says, it is unethical to value one's own children so much more highly than those of strangers.
I think it's also worth considering what it is that glatt might consider a 'critical role in society'. Would that be the emergency care specialist that revives him after his heart attack? Or the gangsta rapper I'm listening to on my iPod?
Valuing people according to their role in society raises an interesting question about what kind of society we're talking about. Many western cultures have modeled themselves on imperial Rome, a violent, philistine, stratified, slave owning, misogynistic dictatorship. At the same time, we've all observed with mild curiosity the rapid extinction of a wondrous variety of pre-industrial cultures scattered across the globe that, often as not, reflect values of gentleness and communal harmony that Western culture is unlikely to ever be able to comprehend, let alone aspire to.
On top of all this, I think the first question to ask about how we value others is, how do we value ourselves?
So how does this all change when you have sexual feelings for little kids? Because you have already admitted to that much, correct?
http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=594587&postcount=136So how does this all change when you have sexual feelings for little kids? Because you have already admitted to that much, correct?
It doesn't change. Would you like to suggest why it would?
Actually, I have some questions for you Mercenary?
Are you homophobic? If so, well, thats pretty much all I need to know.
If not, can you tell me why a kid in a redneck town would expose himself to stigma and violence by choosing to be attracted to men?
Also, could you tell me the difference between volition and experience, or an emotion and an act?
It doesn't change. Would you like to suggest why it would?
No. I was more interested in your thoughts. But you say it is no different if you are a pedophile. I accept that. You should know better than me, that is why I asked.
I think I agree with the philosopher Peter Singer.
Oh god. And THAT'S pretty much all I need to know.
No. I was more interested in your thoughts. But you say it is no different if you are a pedophile. I accept that. You should know better than me, that is why I asked.
I've already revealed quite a bit about my thoughts. I thought it was fairly obvious that I think a paedophile has no less intrinsic value than anybody else. Did you see my other questions?
Oh god. And THAT'S pretty much all I need to know.
:D Care to elaborate?
Among the many, many problems I have with Singer, he thinks that children younger than 2 and the mentally handicapped and have no inherent value, and can be killed for any reason, including the simple convenience of the caregiver.
Singer is the living reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism.
Among the many, many problems I have with Singer, he thinks that children younger than 2 and the mentally handicapped and have no inherent value, and can be killed for any reason, including the simple convenience of the caregiver.
Singer is the living reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism.
Well maybe
reductio ad absurdum is part of his argument.
Its all very well to grumble at the uncompromising nature of some consequentialist conclusions, but unless you can provide coherent alternatives, you're stuck on the same path.
So what are those alternatives? Something from outer space? Tablets of stone?
Utilitarianism isn't coherent. It's an absolutely untenable ethical system.
Singer himself doesn't come anywhere close to following the harsh edicts he so cavalierly decrees. He lives on far more than $30,000 a year (he states that unless you donate any income above that to alleviate hunger, you are committing murder), and he didn't manage to put a pillow over his mother's face, even after she had descended into Alzheimer's to the point where she was "no longer a person".
Singer is a joke.
Well maybe reductio ad absurdum is part of his argument.
I have no idea what that might mean.
I have no idea what that might mean.
It means that Singer the man is not identical with Singer the philosopher. As you pointed out in your other post.
And you still haven't suggested any rational basis for an ethics besides the consequences of acts.
Sorry man, I don't have the time or the inclination to spew undergrad intro to philosophy notes back and forth.
Singer and others of his ilk get the question wrong. They want to drag a modernist theory of knowledge along with them into a post-modern world, and it just won't work. Ethics isn't rationally derivable from first principles.
Consequentialist Ethics are concerned with an abstract calculus that can be applied universally to all possible acts-of-a-kind. The world doesn't actually work like that, which is why Singer and others don't bother actually trying to LIVE the extreme positions they argue for. What is called for instead is moral wisdom, or virtue.
Put down the Singer (unless, of course, you need to study up for the midterm) and pick up some Alasdair MacIntyre instead. You'll find it a much better reflection of how human beings actually live and move and breathe as moral beings.
Gotta love those scots! I'm a big fan of Richard Holloway. But yeah. I can see where you're coming from.
But I think somewhere between 'Virtue' and 'Duty' there's actually room for a humble little concept, verging on the ethological, which is called 'empathy', which to me is something innate, and not entirely unique to humans.
The interesting thing about empathy is that it can be educated, to a large extent by understanding the possibility and extent of harm.
What I can't accept is that there is such a thing as an objective 'knowledge' of the nature of virtue, which seems to be what Aristotle and other supernaturalists want us to believe.
I am really not much for philosphy or philosophers. I prefer something more *thinks* nailed down: hence I am an historian not a philosopher :P
That said, i think Singer has some interesting things to say. Some worrying ones too, but some of it is genuinely intriguing. I don;t think he is under any obligation to live by his philosphy and I get the distinct impression that he has simply followed his ethical philosphy to their logical conclusion in many instances. That's his task, as a philospher/ethicist: to set the parameters of his theory and then follow them out where they go to. It is no more uncomfortable than many other ethical/philosphical theories, once you track them to their logical conclusions. Such theories are by their nature, artificial: the human factor will bugger up the best and worst of theories once an attempt is made to live by them.
Gah. Philosophers. Historians are way more fun :)
Gah. Philosophers. Historians are way more fun :)
Natural philosophers!
;)
Pshaw. I say again, pshaw.
Have you read "The fates of nations" by Paul Colinveaux?
Or, in a similar vein, Jared Diamond's "Guns, germs and steel"?
or Manuel de Landa's "War in the age of intelligent machines" Brilliant!
Natural historians, I meant to say...
Ah, Natural History, the slightly disreputable, chain smoking dowager aunt of the Sciences!
They're ALL branches of philosophy, mate. :D
I've never actually studied Singer directly or fully so I have no more than incidental knowledge of his positions, but he is somewhat like Radar, in that, having settled on some principles he builds on them exactly as logic dictates, but never then considers a reductio ad absurdum of his own position, because he is already sold on the principles and the numerous apparent successes along the way.
I think Smooth is unfair to him, and I could argue about his philosophy, but I only do that for money. And it isn't really my field, I'm more into metaphysics.
I can't pretend to be a student of Singer, or philosophy for that matter. I've read vanishingly small quantities of both.
But I'm interested in what Singer has to say about 'expanding circles' of empathy. As an ethologist, I'm interested in the roots of empathy in our biology, as described by primatologist Frans deWaal. Like Singer, I'm a hard consequentialist, but I think empathy provides a subjectivity within which utilitarianism makes sense. It's not an abstract calculus, it's insight into the causes of harm and the nature of suffering.
I think maybe the three big ideas in philosophical ethics -virtue, duty and the greater good- probably reflect three modes of the operation of empathy -subjective, collective and universal.
smoothmoniker's comments about children younger than 2 and the mentally handicapped made me think of the Stephen Hawking would have been left to die argument against Obama's health reforms. Lol!
And I never really got metaphysics. Is that like angels on pinheads and stuff?
smoothmoniker's comments about children younger than 2 and the mentally handicapped made me think of the Stephen Hawking would have been left to die argument against Obama's health reforms. Lol!
No, I'm not fear-mongering here, that's directly from Singer, and it's a position he's restate and defended many, many times in his writing and public interviews. I'm not presenting an extreme distortion of his views, those are his views, and he makes no apology for them.
By all means, watch this entire interview for context, and read what he's written elsewhere, but here is Singer articulating exactly this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bi81JcddWc#t=5m35sI just watched that interview and I thought he made some good points actually. I don't think it's so shocking. He's not advocating the euthanasia of babies born with a disability. He's advocating choice for families when a child is born severely disabled: it's a tricky one and difficult to draw legislative lines, but the example he gives of a baby born with no brain, but a brain stem is an interesting one.
Why am I not surprised. :headshake
I just watched that interview and I thought he made some good points actually. I don't think it's so shocking. He's not advocating the euthanasia of babies born with a disability. He's advocating choice for families when a child is born severely disabled: it's a tricky one and difficult to draw legislative lines, but the example he gives of a baby born with no brain, but a brain stem is an interesting one.
Yeah, he seems pretty reasonable to me.
Personally I think religious sloganeering around the 'sanctity of life' is little more than a fetish. Keeping somebody in a persistent vegetative state for decades when children die every minute of the day for want of a handful of rice is simply perverse.
I know a little girl who is quite severely disabled, and to be honest, when she was a baby, I wondered about the point of her life. It was a lesson for me because she is very much loved and altho she requires constant care, she gives a lot back to those around her and is an inspiring person to know. I like her a lot.
But she isn't insentient, she's a thoughtful and clever little girl. Also, she lives in an environment with the resources to care for her. Where people have a more ongoing struggle for survival, I expect the balance shifts because the survival of a family or community can be endangered if one individual becomes a significant burden.
I have some faith in the power of love, and I think an ideology that compels a woman to carry an unwanted child to term, or compels parents to keep alive a child whose future is severely compromised by illness, is actually contemptuous of the power of love and I despise it.
heh, probably how some feel about self proclaimed pedophiles. contempt makes the world go round, i guess.
I know a little girl who is quite severely disabled, and to be honest, when she was a baby, I wondered about the point of her life. It was a lesson for me because she is very much loved and altho she requires constant care, she gives a lot back to those around her and is an inspiring person to know. I like her a lot.
But she isn't insentient, she's a thoughtful and clever little girl. Also, she lives in an environment with the resources to care for her. Where people have a more ongoing struggle for survival, I expect the balance shifts because the survival of a family or community can be endangered if one individual becomes a significant burden.
I have some faith in the power of love, and I think an ideology that compels a woman to carry an unwanted child to term, or compels parents to keep alive a child whose future is severely compromised by illness, is actually contemptuous of the power of love and I despise it.
I hate that this post by you has touched me so deeply. thanks
Among the many, many problems I have with Singer, he thinks that children younger than 2 and the mentally handicapped and have no inherent value, and can be killed for any reason, including the simple convenience of the caregiver.
When Singer says
it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific (Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217), he makes it clear that his views on killing are not the unfeeling triumph of unconstrained self interest, but an argument about how to do the best by people.
What he is saying is that dogmatic adherence to a doctrine on the sanctity of life is not guaranteed to lead to the best moral outcome. Representing this as the nullification of the rights of vulnerable individuals seems misleading at best.
I once allowed some people to search for the victim of an avalanche. He was dead anyway, but even if he had been alive, I made the wrong decision. I should have left him, because I put the lives of the searchers at risk. That's a situation where the 'sanctity of life' fails as an absolute principle. There are plenty more.
Singer is the living reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism.
I commented that maybe that was part of his argument because I think thats how utilitarianism plays out sometimes. The world is full of ethical vegetarians who have reluctantly become so through introspection and analysis. If that isn't an absurdity in the species with the most lethal bite of any mammal, then what is?
heh, probably how some feel about self proclaimed pedophiles. contempt makes the world go round, i guess.
I'm despising an ideology, you a person. I think that's the difference.
I hate that this post by you has touched me so deeply. thanks
Thanks classicman! I'm touched that you're touched, seriously.
:blush:
So how does this all change when you have sexual feelings for little kids?
Put down the Singer ... and pick up some Alasdair MacIntyre instead.
Despite my quoting Singer, I'm not inclined to dismiss MacIntyre's Aristotelianism. I think the concept of a tradition of virtue, and of categories of living that reflect character and a moral attitude are quite valid.
As I've said, I situate an ethological formulation of instinctive empathy as primary in ethical decision making (a kind of emotivism). Subsequent to it, I invoke a consequentialist argument to explain how we come by an objective understanding of harm.
I despise religion in all its manifestations[COLOR="Blue"]*[/COLOR], so my formulation of 'virtue' also tends to follow a naturalistic, anti-authoritarian and existential path that champions personal responsibility over mass chanting in unison. Of the theological virtues -faith, hope and charity- only charity acquires a positive evaluation in my ethical schema, and its co-opting as a characteristic virtue by religious traditions seems to me a baseless self promotion.
But there is definitely room for some crossover between my position and MacIntyre's.
For me, being attracted to children isn't a moral problem, it is a simple fact. Where I think MacIntyre might have something useful to contribute (and I intend to read some of his work) is in that the
primary moral problem faced by paedophiles is the apparent absence of any clear tradition of right action that addresses their own particular needs. In MacIntyre's terms, there is no narrative tradition of paedophilia that enables virtue.
In truth there is. That tradition is well established, but it has been driven underground and all but destroyed by the wave of persecution over recent decades. I think it's important to rehabilitate it. There is a rich tradition to draw on, a tradition of paedophiles who are 'great souls' and are not 'moral monsters', and who have written movingly about their lives and experiences.
In these difficult times, I think it takes some
courage (not merely daring) to assert the potential for good in paedophiles, so I'm going to give myself a pat on the back just for suggesting it.
[COLOR="Blue"]*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.[/COLOR]
I should add that Aristotelian arguments stemming from the social forms of the telos of the polis are machinist, in that they honour the human superorganism, the city-state. This organism does not have human qualities, or human values, and it's own values are not relevant to what is good for human beings.
Not only are they not relevant, they are inimical. The city-state is to the human subject what a Silon is to Starbuck.
And I should also add that my attitude to religion is not personal. I have no sense that religion motivates the kind of prejudice of which I've been a victim.
Not only are they not relevant, they are inimical. The city-state is to the human subject what a Silon is to Starbuck.
Would that also hold true for the nation state?
Why am I not surprised. :headshake
What are you unsurprised about?
Would that also hold true for the nation state?
Yep. Same thing really. It's complicated. I'm patriotic in a way, but I put people before flags I suppose.
What are you unsurprised about?
Nuttin' jus sayin'
Yes, in a subjective sense.
My life is, to me, worth more than the presidential porch monkey's.
My 3 year old nephew's life is, to me, worth more than my own.
Objectively: all of them, including mine, are 'worth' spit... ;)
Yes, in a subjective sense.
My life is, to me, worth more than the presidential porch monkey's.
My 3 year old nephew's life is, to me, worth more than my own.
Objectively: all of them, including mine, are 'worth' spit... ;)
Oh, Henry! So glad to see you!
And you may not believe this, but I actually AGREE with what you just said.
/Tips hat
"Oh, Henry! So glad to see you!"
Queenie!
#
"And you may not believe this, but I actually AGREE with what you just said."
Which part?
The 'subjective value of a life' part, or, 'the presidential porch monkey' part?
HA!
"Oh, Henry! So glad to see you!"
Queenie!
#
"And you may not believe this, but I actually AGREE with what you just said."
Which part?
The 'subjective value of a life' part, or, 'the presidential porch monkey' part?
HA!
Actually all three points: subjectivity, monkey business, and Spit.
I think this is one of the questions of life, and after a while of thought on the subject I cannot come up with a conclusion.
What do you think?
One primate is pretty much the same as another, so no.
I think this is one of the questions of life, and after a while of thought on the subject I cannot come up with a conclusion.
What do you think?
The question deserves an objective answer and a personal answer. In objective terms, no. But since we are social creatures, the lives of those I know are more "important" and will certainly take precedence.
The question deserves an objective answer and a personal answer. In objective terms, no. But since we are social creatures, the lives of those I know are more "important" and will certainly take precedence.
Depends. I hate most of the humans I know, so I don't put them ahead of anyone else. Some exceptions exist, but not enough to base a concrete philosophy on.
I suspect not. Didn't we ban these guys or is this a new troll?
IP is from Vietnam = new model spammer
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.
I despise religion in all its manifestations[COLOR="Blue"]*[/COLOR]. . .
[COLOR="Blue"]*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.[/COLOR]
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.
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.
'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.
'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.