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

[Autumnlicious]

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?

As a society that is formed by our evolutionary impulses to be a social species and all the baggage that it entails, consent is clearly a required component of functioning with others. If one does actions against another's consent, then they risk damaging their relationship to that individual. Enough actions such as these will be recognized as aberrant by society and exterminated. Note that society is protecting itself from a fundamental destabilization of a "social contract" (term used loosely) knowingly or even unknowingly. An ideal society is stable and self rectifying - it is objectively the ideal model of a social grouping that resists and repairs corrupting influences such as conventional murder, abuse et al. If you compare our society as it is now to the societies of city states and early nations, you will find that their demise for many a time was precluded by periods of corruption, where persecuting minorities, holding slaves and generally behaving like self centered pillocks are identified by historians and cultural anthropologists as symptoms or even causes of the fall ; whereas modern societies are slightly more stable. Individuals of those olden times were far less educated by far fewer numbers than individuals today, which is why people like you, Sae, have less of a chance at being burned at a stake than receiving the required medical operations for free due to modern societies attempting to reach this ideal goal - the goal of a perfectly stable, self managing, self healing and self rectifying society, as our naturalistic impulses to receive the most resources et al for the least cost involves optimizing society to give us all a fair chance to compete at our maximum efficiency.

The very darwinian interests that have served us since the first cells divided upon this Earth and long after the our sun ignited drive our very base interests and are the foundation for our efficient minds, constantly looking to amass resources and spread.

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?

Morality is a sticky subject, no doubt. Most people I run into like to define their own morality or claim divine intervention. I disagree with those people as I believe in a form of objective morality as dictated by our evolutionary developments as a social species lies the basis for society. An unstable society eventually perishes - doesn't matter if they themselves consider some action or program to be morally allowed as the very inequalities formed by the former will destabilize, weaken it due to our very nature. Hence why Operation Valkyrie was not such a surprise - the diaries of the officers involved stated that German society was coming apart because of the war and Hitler's actions, so they resolved to try to exterminate him in an attempt to save what they considered was their very core nature. Even then, outside of what the Germans or even other nations chose to believe through ideology and selective views on reality, German society was breaking due to the inequalities forced upon the German people by the "ideal" bred German - if you have one group of people feeling or being suppressed or unequal, they will damage in some manner the host society at large. West Rome fell apart as their own economic engine of slaves imploded due to insufficient expansion and slave incursions - leaving it ripe for the taking by the very tribes that guarded it.

It may seem that I've not answered your question directly, but what I've done is lay out the foundations for an objective morality as the ideal stable, self repairing, etc, system as laid out by our evolution. Which will state what is sacred, etc,. The divine rule of Kings came to an end as education and economics allowed people to more efficiently take their feelings of inequality and express it in many aspects, as opposed to traditional violence.

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.

I did not state that it was absolutely immoral - what I defined was a sliding scale of value as correlated with conventional/traditional morality. It is of my opinion that objective morality and laws to reflect such as is compatible with our evolution is the most optimized and most efficient and most stable of any potential system. And just because it is optimal doesn't mean that people won't do other things - savage actions like stoning are looked upon by today as fully barbaric. It saddens me that we (the US) or any other rather educated country do not flex our collective power and suppress those savage behaviors. But then again, it is far too easy for me to find a liberal willing to defend multiculturalism as a whole instead of focusing on our differences that do the most good and stamping out the ones that do harm. Don't think conservatives are safe from my wrath - they aren't ; I find them far too apt to fall back to emotional absolutes for deciding their actions instead of attempting to live as logical a life as possible. Stupid animals.

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

I did not state that a human being has rights upon existing as an absolute; I did state that those who can understand such rights are granted them and those who will develop into understanding those rights are granted them by proxy in lieu of their maturation to that state. Potential only comes into play as there are developing points at which a fetus would never develop a mind if halted (killed or left in a stasis of development) at many points, but when it becomes an infant, clearly that infant, if not damaged/hindered genetically, will develop that mind if properly cared for.

Often times when an infant cannot be raised and it is impossible to hand off, then it is ethically permissible to kill them, much like it is ethically permissible to kill someone trying to kill you, etc,. My system depends on value - for greater the value of one, then the judgements to be made increase dramatically in consideration and deliberation. It does not mean that one should then arbitrarily feel free to make actions to kill infants wholesale, but merely to guide the facts of the case to make as informed a decision as possible.

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

Of course.

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

Once again, I will reiterate this as a form of guidelines, not an absolute system but a relative one decided case by case by rational beings. Irrational beings will make irrational decisions and should be marginalized and disavowed by any means necessary as the danger they pose to society, other and themselves is rather unthinkable as we cannot predict the future, only allay ourselves with possibilities and probabilities.

A desperate mother is in a state of irrationality by definition and should not be allowed to make any decisions, for the very act of killing many of similar potential to her own offspring is unequal, destroys too much value for one thing, etc,. I suppose that an infant of verified genius (read the infant IS a genius) is worth more than ten fully retarded infants and thus with respect to value could return equal or more, but the decision to make such would need to be made by rational individuals weighing all the options and potential to make an informed decision.

You'll find that informed consent is a major theme here too.

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).

Of course, the scales of the previous graph are mutable and once again form a guideline to trying to objectively weigh the worth and value of another. To keep as objective as possible, restraint of emotion is required lest it corrupt the very decision you are trying to make.

Emotions are not based in logic and hence are not defensible in this system, making it rather consistent and defensible.

Plus, while I value emotion, I value logic far, far more.

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.

Indeed. Guidelines my dear. This is not an absolute system - I despise such as they are not flexible for all cases. Of course, it is easier to make decisions with an absolute scale for most of the time, but I see that as non optimal.

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

---

Nothing ever worth doing was truly easy in the end run, only the appearance of ease. And I'd rather evaluate the entirety of a life, potential or not, before ever removing it, as we cannot return life, only take it. Perhaps a day will come that we can return life.

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

Nice that my system can be applied to anything that has sapience (wisdom/capacity to learn) - values are less or more in comparison to a human, all things relative but logically defensible.

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

To true - the rights of the severely retarded should be restricted to what they understand and their care takers (I mean in SEVERE cases FYI) have the responsibilities of maintaining them much like one must maintain their pets. Just because it looks human doesn't mean it is.

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

We reach.