This is how I see it:

No worth. People have no intrinsic worth. Nothing does. Things only have worth to [something] and so is subjective and not inherent. At best you could call objective worth the weighted average of its worth to every sentient being in the universe. But who gets to decide the weightings?

"Worth" is an abstract concept, provided by a thinking agent to help itself make decisions. This would include whatever worth we have to bizarre beings such as "gods".

To provide evidence of intrinsic worth, you'd have to define it in such a way as to be objectively measurable. I doubt this is possible while retaining any notion of what "worth" is without begging the question; especially if we all have to objectively end up with the same measurement.

What about animals? What worth would they get from this measurement? Same as humans? 50%? 10%?

Hi Rob, I think the problem is I don't understand your position very well. To me, it sounds like you're saying a person is worthless and their lives are worthless unless someone else values that particular person.

So if no one cares about Joe, for example, in a country where enslaving/killing Joe's race is not against the law, does that mean it's not immoral to treat Joe like a worthless object? Would it only be immoral to treat him that way if someone else cared about him, or if it was against the law?

I disagree that we should strive to value all life as equal. Why do you value those you love over those you hate? Why do you value those you know over strangers? I think it's natural instinct. What drives you to protect your children from strangers? What drives you to defend your community against criminals? What about killing in self defense? What about defending your nation against an invading army? What about the police in a shoot out with a criminal who's trying to kill an innocent bystander? Do we want them to value both lives equally? If so, they'd likely not intervene because they won't shoot a criminal to save his/her victim. We should value some lives over others. It doesn't mean my life is worth more than someone else's, but it does mean that I value my life a little bit more. I'm not going to turn the other cheek and let someone kill me or a person I care about, I don't consider that to be some kind of admirable quality that I should strive for.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Inherent worth means they have worth regardless of perspective. They just "have worth" like they "have mass". They don't. It requires a perspective.

Whether something is considered moral or immoral depends entirely on the particular society. If the society says killing people like Joe is fine, then it's moral. If it says it's not, then it's immoral. Presumably Joe has sufficient worth to the first society, but not the second. Neither society can say they are "right", they just have different value systems.

For example, I consider killing animals for food grossly immoral, as is owning them as property. I try and give their wellbeing and happiness as much worth as possible. Clearly society disagrees with me, society says breeding animals for food is fine, as is treating them like a commodity. Society places a much lesser worth on animals. Who is objectively right? Neither of us. The animals have no inherent, objective worth.

(September 14, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Losty Wrote: I disagree that we should strive to value all life as equal. Why do you value those you love over those you hate? Why do you value those you know over strangers? I think it's natural instinct. What drives you to protect your children from strangers? What drives you to defend your community against criminals? What about killing in self defense? What about defending your nation against an invading army? What about the police in a shoot out with a criminal who's trying to kill an innocent bystander? Do we want them to value both lives equally? If so, they'd likely not intervene because they won't shoot a criminal to save his/her victim. We should value some lives over others. It doesn't mean my life is worth more than someone else's, but it does mean that I value my life a little bit more. I'm not going to turn the other cheek and let someone kill me or a person I care about, I don't consider that to be some kind of admirable quality that I should strive for.

When an instigator is attacking you (or someone else), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. If that amount of force results in their death, it's still tragic because it's still the loss of a life. But it's not immoral because it's self defense. This does not mean all human life isn't equal.

(September 14, 2015 at 12:36 pm)robvalue Wrote: Whether something is considered moral or immoral depends entirely on the particular society. If the society says killing people like Joe is fine, then it's moral. If it says it's not, then it's immoral. Presumably Joe has sufficient worth to the first society, but not the second. Neither society can say they are "right", they just have different value systems.

So was what Americans did to the Africans moral when we enslaved them, since it was legal and normal in our society? Was the Holocaust moral, since it was the law of that land? 

Sorry, I don't mean to harp. Just trying to make sure I understand your views. 

I wonder why you haven't addressed this post from a few pages ago, C_L:

(September 12, 2015 at 3:24 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 5:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: First of all, I am so sorry you went through that. My friend just lost her baby only days after she realized she was pregnant, and she's devastated. 

I guess I should have specified that by "abortion" I mean deliberately killing an unborn baby. A spontaneous abortion/miscarriage is what happened to you, so no, you didn't do anything I think is wrong or "heinous."  

With that being said I still don't support abortion in those cases because I see every human life as equal. I do think it's immoral to just downright kill one innocent person in order to save another innocent person. But when faced with very difficult moral questions like this, we have to comb through the very fine details. For example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where the mom and the baby are sure to die anyway, I don't think it's wrong to remove the damaged Fallopian tube. Or in the case where a pregnancy becomes very dangerous, just for the mom, I don't think it's wrong to try to remove the baby   as safely as possible and try to get him/her to survive somehow. Of course, he/she will probably die, especially if they are still very young, but at least you removed the mom from the dangerous situation she was in without cutting the baby apart, or whatever other method (I'll spare the nasty details), and still trying to save him/her too. 

This may seem petty to a lot of people, but it's mainly about the principle. It's about not forgetting that every human life is equal. It would not be consistent if we said every life is equal and then turned around and said one innocent life takes precedence over another  if one if still in the womb.

But I would have had the abortion anyway... I would have killed the unborn *fetus* anyway. I was just under four months along, and I already felt the overwhelming toll it was taking on my body. But that didn't even matter: I never wanted kids, even before the doctor told me they weren't feasible. I would have, sure, taken better precautions with birth control, but if I became pregnant healthfully, I probably still would have aborted. Deliberately.

Did I just get lucky? If so, how does that make every life "equal"? I mean, according to your theology, your god made me, right? All of me? Even the part of me that would have made the decision to have an abortion, healthy or not?

(September 14, 2015 at 12:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: When an instigator is attacking you (or someone else), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. If that amount of force results in their death, it's still tragic because it's still the loss of a life. But it's not immoral because it's self defense. This does not mean all human life isn't equal.

If you could kill someone in self defense, then you cannot value their life as much as you value your own.

Sure, it's fine. It's two different questions to say whether it was considered moral at the time, to whether it would be considered moral today. It also depends which society you ask. The American killers probably thought their actions were moral, the native Americans probably felt they were immoral. So even in one age, there is no consensus. Also, the law isn't the same as morality although it usually has some relation to society's overall morality.

Ultimately every single individual has their own idea about how moral any particular action is. The overlap within any particular society at any particular time becomes the norm. No action is inherently moral or immoral because that makes no sense. There has to be a judge, and different judges come to different conclusions.

This should be clear in my animal example. Am I "more moral" than society? According to me, yes. According to society, no.

(September 14, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Losty Wrote:

(September 14, 2015 at 12:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: When an instigator is attacking you (or someone else), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. If that amount of force results in their death, it's still tragic because it's still the loss of a life. But it's not immoral because it's self defense. This does not mean all human life isn't equal.

If you could kill someone in self defense, then you cannot value their life as much as you value your own.

Not at all. Just because I am defending myself from someone who is trying to kill me, doesn't mean my life is worth more. It just means it's justice. 

Let's say someone I love very much is trying to kill someone whom I've never met before. The police show up and try refrain him, but can't. They have to act quickly before the perpetrator kills his victim, and the only thing they can do at this point is shoot him. The bullet hits him somewhere on the torso, and he falls to the ground, bleeding. The ambulance shows up and tries to save him (because his life still has worth), but he ends up dying in a few hours. 

Obviously, I cared more about my loved one than I did about the person he was trying to kill. But does that mean it would have been right to let him kill his victim, since I cared about him more than I cared about the victim? No. Why? Because every life is equal, and so in every case, if one person is unjustifiably trying to kill someone else, that person has the right to be defended. Regardless of whether I care more about the victim, or about the attacker.