Rhythm, it's really just a fascinating thing when people can agree that there is objective value in human life because then the next logical question is what the source of this value is?

Socks, toasters, perhaps pebbles add this ephemeral objective value..it would be impossible to determine until someone can establish, not agree upon, establish an objective value in the first place. Meanwhile, again...we three agree that human life has value. Is this less fascinating because it is not objective....and what would being objective add to our assessments of value?

Would we suddenly be able to say, for example, "I think you're wrong on that and this is why!" - well.....we already can and do. We three already feel that anyone who does not value human life is incorrect in holding such an opinion..and we can all explain why without referring to something as yet undemonstrated (and I suspect, undemonstrable, incoherent, non-cognitive)...I hope?

(January 12, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Kingpin Wrote: Rhythm, it's really just a fascinating thing when people can agree that there is objective value in human life because then the next logical question is what the source of this value is?

Absence of death?

If life "has value" that isn't anything to do with any of our opinions about that life, where is it? Is it floating around it? Can a sample of it be taken? How can it be measured?

I can only see value as being an abstract concept, a judgement. If it's meant to be something else, it needs defining or it appears meaningless. What is this value?

Having opinions about it is well and good, but I can't even understand what the opinions are pertaining to. It might as well be its "blobisterisation factor" for all the term "objective value" means to me.

Regarding currency, we arbitrarily assign a fixed amount of "value", in a specific sense, to money. It isn't inherent to the money, the money represents an idea that only has meaning to us. Without us around, it's just paper, metal and numbers. It has no inherent value. We can do the same with life and arbitrarily "give it value", and then it "has value". But this is simply a tautology.

(January 12, 2016 at 4:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(January 12, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Kingpin Wrote: Rhythm, it's really just a fascinating thing when people can agree that there is objective value in human life because then the next logical question is what the source of this value is?

Absence of death?

I interrupt the regular discussion in progress to give props to Mr Brewer for his fab new puppy photo avatar.  Carry on.

(January 12, 2016 at 12:23 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(January 11, 2016 at 6:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Close. 

I think it is on a sliding scale. But I can't say I am 100% confident in this. 

And yes, *IF* it is on a sliding scale, I don't know exactly where on the scale that is for each/any life form. I do imagine humans would be above bacteria though lol.

Sorry for the delay in response, life got in the way.

Let's just stick to humans. To you which has more value, your husband or my wife? Which one could you easier deal with going away, forever?

To me personally, my husband is more important. But factually, the life of my husband and that of your wife are equally valuable.

(January 12, 2016 at 3:22 pm)Kingpin Wrote:

(January 12, 2016 at 12:23 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Sorry for the delay in response, life got in the way.

Let's just stick to humans. To you which has more value, your husband or my wife? Which one could you easier deal with going away, forever?

I see the point you are trying to make here MH.  I don't think anyone is denying that we as humans place subjective value on other humans and to varying degrees.  I tried to make the point that this does not negate the inherent objective value of human life.  Of course you value those close to you more than others.  

Let's spin it this way.  You hand a homeless man $100 bill.  In that same day you hand Donald Trump $100 bill.  Who values it more?  Donald Trump could use it for toilet paper and not care, where the homeless man may be able to eat for month.  Does the value of that bill change depending on who is using it?  It has objective value of $100 placed on it by the U.S. Government.  So you could argue that the homeless man subjectively places higher value to a $100 bill than Donald trump does, but objectively it's true value never changed.

I was thinking about this today and also thought about using the money analogy to explain it. I see you beat me to it. 

He beat you to a terrible analogy, you should probably thank him for that.  

If that's what objective value means, then objective value it is interchangeable and indistinguishable from subjective value.

(January 12, 2016 at 5:42 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(January 12, 2016 at 4:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Absence of death?

I interrupt the regular discussion in progress to give props to Mr Brewer for his fab new puppy photo avatar.  Carry on.

Thanks. That's Vincent (co-owned, living in WI). Mom accidentally bit one ear off while cleaning off the amniotic sac.

I hope he remembers that going forward, if he ever decides to get nippy with his mom.