The value of a human life (and why abortion, economics, pulling the plug and triage)

[Violet]

I apologize for the delay 0.o

First off, with respect to EvidenceVsFaith and Saerules on the beginning statement of the current quote post (see the hidden part below), the clear intent of the phrase "Well - once it is no longer a foetus I would think it would be ethically wrong to end the newly born baby's life for the same reason(s) as it would be to end mine" is to show that from the perspective of another affecting the one, in this case EvF or the newborn, it is unethical and immoral to destroy the one's life without their consent if they bear the capacity, potentiality or have a third party with the same faculties acting in their place as guardian to act as the means of granting consent.

When an organism is incapable of making present decisions by virtue not of body but of mind or lack thereof, it falls to the legal guardian to make the decision. This is a well established area in law and is commonly accepted. In matter of a developing fetus, during the early to mid stages of growth there is insufficient brain mass, folding and electrical activity to sustain the potential for that individual to grow into a functioning adult. This area of philosophy, if you are curious, is often called the potentiality argument. Often it is used to argue against abortion, however I am using it to show that a developing fetus during much of its development is fundamentally a nonperson. If it were to be removed or birthed during those times and it's body was kept functionally alive, it would never develop into a thinking individual. No exceptions. That is due to the complexity of biology involved.

I somewhat question 2 things in the above two paragraphs. Firstly: how does 'capacity' (for granting consent?), 'potentiality' (that it might grant consent eventually?), or an extrapersonal value of consent assigned to a thing necessarily make it 'unethical' or 'immoral' to kill said thing? Perhaps more simply: why does it matter that a thing consents or not?

Secondly: that a thing is established into law hardly means it is necessarily moral or immoral for all, or even most, of the people. In fact... the case can happen where a very small group of people is in power (such as oligarchy or monarchy), and assigns laws based on their beliefs, which are not shared by the masses (often lacking in the ability to make laws in such a system). Also... what matters it that a thing is is a person, is currently not (but 'soon' will be), or will never be a person? What makes 'people' something <sacred?> that need to be protected when it would be a largely negative choice to do so?

Basically: While I agree with your use of the potentiality argument... I do not agree (necessarily, though I do agree that it is perhaps often considered a factor... which is to further why i question it) that either A: a living thing's 'personness' applies when considering killing it, nor B: that killing people is necessarily immoral (or illegal)... and we might notice that some of us (humans) are particularly apt to do so in actions such as wars and stoning.

To establish the clear illegality of destroying an infant without consent as another, one must recall that an infant has the clear potential, assuming all bodily needs are met, to develop into a thinking individual. However, as the concept of rights are a non entity to an infant, it falls to the parent(s) to act as the legal intermediary, much as one may act as a legal intermediary for an unconscious or comatose individual. Please note that potentiality does not guarantee a mind will be developed, but it does guarantee a significant nonzero chance of that. Please note the usage of significant and non zero, as would fall under scientific and mathematical definitions. I must reiterate that the fetus at earlier stages has a fundamentally zero chance, by nature of limits and noting that an insignificant number close to zero is functionally zero, and therefore has no rights and no potentiality.

And why would a living thing (human or otherwise) automatically have rights upon existing? Also, could not the society choose to 'save' a baby that the parents declared not worth their time and resources? Further... in some societies (ie: Sparta), it was custom for the society to eradicate all of the male children that were 'clearly unfit', regardless of what the parent(s?) wanted (of course, their breeding system also does not reflect our own, so it very well could be that only the mother would have an opinion of the baby to keep it alive).

There are many ways in which it is not illegal to kill an infant human... wether without consent or not. Wether or not these ways apply to our current society is a matter of ethics, and does not appear to have anything to do with the economics and desires of the one(s?) who would be raising the infant(s). I am of the opinion that it is brutal and a waste of resources to carry a pregnancy to 'birth, only to kill the baby. However, humans have children like rabbits poop: whenever, wherever, and whatever the state of the food that's around. Or was that 'like rabbits eat'? I can never remember v_v

Which is why some related socialized things such as orphanages can be so very useful: they can make use of the otherwise unable to be cared for child

However, it does not end there. A parent, for example, may not willingly destroy their child, as one acting as a legal intermediary for an incapacitated individual may not simply pull a gun and shoot them. Only under extenuating circumstances may the right to end a life be granted, whether in best interests of the individual at hand (infant) or of a significant group of people. Killing an infant, say, to prevent many developed individuals from being killed by a bomb, is ethically permissable only as we note that there is potential for an infant to grow into an individual against the further stage developed group of individuals. However, as individuals age and die, the value judgement involved requires that one balance off the potential for a developed, thinking organism that has lived longer to live to the maximum age and continue developing as a thinking being with the potential of an infant to live and develop into a thinking organism. Therefore, one may make the value judgement of saving an infant over a group of terminally ill patients or elderly, as they are close to death and/or functionally stagnant for intellectual growth due to failing and aged biology.

I think it is hardly so clear cut as even that. A <desperate?> mother (who values her baby more than everything else in the world) might bomb several 'perfectly healthy and young' people to keep her baby alive (who otherwise would have killed her baby). All 'value judgements' are decided by individuals... and as such: some may decide that a single elderly individual might have much more to offer than ten infants

This system of thought thoroughly discards emotion in favor of potential, where potential to develop into/further as a thinking being and the potential to live to the maximum age. This is due to the tied nature of aging (time) and the development of thought, or as we physicists say:

I think that things can have potentials beyond their age and capacity to work... some people (such like presidents and kings) may have more value to you dead than alive... and some people are simply so talented in a field one values, that one might see more potential in a talented elderly individual than in hundreds of people moderately good with said talent. I rather think that we all think of things in regard to value... and this can include emotions, and may be done without our even realizing it. In example... you apparently value a thing's potential to think and live more than you value emotional attachments (which you appearently value quite little, if at all).

---

d(developingThought)
-----------------
d(time)

Wherever the rate is highest implies the highest value, the lowest, the lowest value. Therefore the most valuable are the developed beings with the best cognitive development. But consider this - this is an equivalency statement for only one (1) individual. An infant is less valuable than a child, a child less than a teen, a teen less than an adult, with an adult more valuable than the elderly. From the perspective of economics or the development of a thinking being, this is the most logical system to consider if a thinking being is considered absolutely valuable over nonthinking beings, in an equivalent comparison, and thinking beings increase and decrease in ability over time.

Equivalent comparison, to define, is matching a single individual or object from one category against a single individual or object of another. For cases with N individuals, it becomes between thinking beings:

Nd(developingThought)
-----------------
d(time)

However, d(developingThought)/dt can be correlated to real world value by analogy of economics, which accounts for the cheapness and expensieveness of human life throughout history, as a single being consumes an approximate amount of resources and produces an approximate value of work. When that is considered, it also makes sense that a single life has a real world resource value, and thus justifies the procedure of triage et al.

In addition, this system fully justifies the act of "pulling the plug" on comatose patients. Resource wars, however, are inherently wasteful through this system unless one belligerent can take control of a desired resource and begin monetizing it in such a way to offset the real world cost of human life, which is rather difficult as it takes time to monetize said resource and if an opponent can destabilize that operation long enough, the former will spend literal human resources at an unsustainable rate, further justifying this system as a simple, concise look at the laws or theorems that dictate the value of human life and anything connected to it.

This is not a philosophy paper by origin, but it is an aggregation of numerous papers on the bioethics of stem cells, abortion and human potentiality. If anything, I believe that this system at the core is cold, clear logic that accurately describes anything involved with the value of any thinking being with respect to the resources involved. After all, in business, time is money. One thing physics loves to note, energy is mass.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with the above... however I find your equation lacking for many of the nuances that can give individuals (and groups) more value than is seen from age and intellectual capacity alone. Indeed... an utterly stupid muscleman is more valuable in some areas of work than are hundreds of 'nerdy' Mensa members. Value isn't a thing that applies only to an individual... it also applies in the context of what said individual might be used for.

I don't think it is all that accurate... simple a system as it is, considering how many examples one can make (that can and do happen) where the value judgement under the system is off by huge quantities from how valuable an individual (or group) could be interpreted to be Indeed... one might understand that there can be no easily calculable standardization of 'what value is' for everyone, unless we all agree on exactly the same points as are relevant in whichever situation is being evaluated

---

Ah the differences between "sentient,sapient" and "sentient,non-sapient" life how interesting, all-or-most animals are sentient, humans are the only sapient being, with a few claims that cetaceans might be sapient, and some of hose arguments hold ground.

And let us not forget that the technologically advanced aliens (well... more so than us... v_v) would hardly consider us even remotely 'sapient'. It's an ignorant argument at best... and a speciesistic and egotistical argument as I commonly see it. v_v

So I'm going to comment that all sapient being should be respected as equals to humans(even if other examples are doubt, might as well say preparing for the future yes), sentient beings should be respected as being with emotions but not on the equal round as sapient beings, means that we can hunt and breed them for feeding, this only because it's necessary, with the ability to make meat in laboratory in the future(very-near future), this might kill the necessity to hunt and fish.
I said this to blow the argument that we are hypocrites for killing cows for food and not fetus and babies.

Even humans are not all equal, and do not (necessarily) deserve equal rights. We can hunt fellow humans for food as well... but do you know why I wouldn't? Because I do not like the taste of pig... and I am told it is not dissimilar to human Also, it is not 'necessary' to hunt and fish: we might like how cheap it is, and how it tastes, and some of us get money from doing it.

I agree with your argument about killing cows and not babies... as it is just silly to hold humans as something sacred v_v

Now I'll explain my argument about abortion.

The fetus is a parasite if unwanted, i mean unwanted as in after serious ponderation, not some state-of-shock claims, a fetus is the beginning of a human being but is not a human being, some people might argue that we should kill the baby no matter what after it has been killed, others say that we should never touch a fetus, as it is a human being, and both claim there isn't a drawn line when it's human or not, or define lines by the wrong parameter(when the heart starts beating),I AGREE WITH NEITHER, there is in fact a clear line when a baby can be judged as a human or not, it's called the brain and when the first electric reactions start in it, this makes it a sapient being that should be respected, in two exceptions, the baby is going to have a serious disease or cripple that the parents can't deal with, and the mother is in danger, that is my opinion on abortion.

State-of-shock decisions are decisions nonetheless. I think the thing can be judged as human immediately after conception: it only needs to grow a little bit before it starts crying and pooping its diapers now. v_v Also... why is sapience (hell... why is even sentience) so sacred in your eyes?

For someone else that doesn't know:
-Sentient-the ability to feel or perceive pain and pleasure.
-Sapient-the ability to think abstractly or have "Wisdom"

And how do either of these apply to a thing's status as killable?

---

But now it seems that you have abandoned the idea of potentiality for a standard of comparing the actual achieved level or current level of development. The latter seems much different than the former and the analysis for each would probably give different results.

As we cannot know the future, nor precisely chart out the actual worth of a human being at any time, this graph is functionally useless but for what I meant to communicate - that people are worth more or less over time due to lack of complete growth/degeneration of mental facilities and physical body (as in age).

Ahhh! So you meant it as an underlying system that runs undercurrent of the rest of a things value? In that case I wholly agree