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

[Violet]

Stuff...

You're a people that disregards other people rights and advocates that killing other people is not immoral

As I am a pacifist, I have no idea what you are going on about when you say I "disregard other peoples rights". I'm rather more favorable to other people's beliefs than I should think most are

I neither support nor recommend killing (save when I believe a situation would be improved by such)... and neutral in many cases to such. Advocating a thing would be publicly supporting it... and all I have done here is suggest that it is not (necessarily) immoral, and can be rather positive. Not that advocating killing is necessarily bad either... I happen to be rather adamant in my desire for my food to be dead before I eat it

Saerules, i don't like you.

I do not like you at all

Well... I love me, and some other people like me ^_^ I haven't known you enough yet to form any opinion of you except that you (or at least your arguments) are quite emotional. How about you attempt to debate my counterarguments?

---

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.

I wholly agree with the above

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.

I can reach answers from this point easily enough. It is an interesting take that I've not heard before, but that I find myself agreeing with.

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.

Again I agree.... stop saying things I agree with ^_^

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.

Indeed.

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.

Of course... I was illustrating how value is an individually decided concept, not that such a mother necessarily made 'the correct' decision.

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.

Will you let me disagree with you?!

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.

As do I (despise absolute systems when they are applied to subjective things).

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.

+1

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.

Indeed it is Of course, such aliens might not use such a system.

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.

I have nothing to add :S

We reach.

At least in this case

[Ashendant]

Stuff

In both cases you disregarded the value of a human life, and gave value of "Right to live" to sapient beings depending on their uses, and that to me is not okay

There is only a few conditions on which i agree on murder has not a crime

[Violet]

I say 'stuff' a lot, don't I?

Stuff

In both cases you disregarded the value of a human life, and gave value of "Right to live" to sapient beings depending on their uses, and that to me is not okay

Disregard its value? All things that I recognize the existence of automatically have value (granted, not much). But why should I automatically value human life beyond this?

I do not understand what you mean to say when you say "and gave value of "Right to live" to sapient beings depending on their uses"... perhaps you could clarify?

Why is such 'not okay to you'?

There is only a few conditions on which i agree on murder has not a crime

Really? And what constitutes a crime?

[Ashendant]

I say 'stuff' a lot, don't I?

Stuff

In both cases you disregarded the value of a human life, and gave value of "Right to live" to sapient beings depending on their uses, and that to me is not okay

Disregard its value? All things that I recognize the existence of automatically have value (granted, not much). But why should I automatically value human life beyond this?

I do not understand what you mean to say when you say "and gave value of "Right to live" to sapient beings depending on their uses"... perhaps you could clarify?

Why is such 'not okay to you'?

There is only a few conditions on which i agree on murder has not a crime

Really? And what constitutes a crime?

Sorry i meant "gave a value as equivalent as "right to live""

Breaking the law is a crime, murder is a crime, but it has some conditions where it can be committed like self-defense

[Violet]

Sorry i meant "gave a value as equivalent as "right to live""

Ah... well in that case: how is that 'not okay'? It certainly seems a simple enough philosophy.

1. breaking the law = crime.

In the land where law mandates we wear red (Read: Soviet Russia :dpdgy: )... wearing blue is breaking the law, and therefore wearing blue is a crime.

In the Klingon Empire, killing is not against the law, and therefore murder is not a crime.

Defined as so... 'crime' really doesn't say all that much about the action(s)... and it is a very subjective word that always requires context.

2. Murder is a crime, but it is has some conditions where it can be committed, like self-defense.

Following the former conclusion... firstly: is not... and secondly: so what? And now onto the subject of conditions... if murder is defined as killing a person with intent and without (perceived?) necessitation (assuming you are defining it thusly?)... then every other situation that does not include every single one of these (ie: killing a person, killing a person with intent (but with perceived necessitation), killing a pig with intent and without perceived necessitation (assuming it is not a person), killing a person without perceived necessitation (but also without intent)) is not murder to begin with. Under such use of law... one can never commit a crime and suffer no consequences (assuming they were identified and 'caught' by the law-giving body).