Inherent Value of life (secular)

[Prolifeyouth]

How can the inherent value of every life, especially in regard to the unborn, be explained soundly to atheists?
I’ve come across the argument that something doesn’t have value unless there is someone to value it. How could I answer this?

 

[Bradskii]

How can the inherent value of every life, especially in regard to the unborn, be explained soundly to atheists?
I’ve come across the argument that something doesn’t have value unless there is someone to value it. How could I answer this?

What you have been told is true. Value is a subjective concept (this is more valuable than that and that has less value than this). So you need a subject to value anything at all. By definition.

But does that mean that something has no value at all? Well, you need to give it context. A diamond necklace is valuable under normal circumstances but has zero value if you are in a desert and need water and not jewellery.

So what about a person…

You need to answer this yourself. You can talk about inherent value but you need some context. Is your sister more valuable tha a friend? Is a friend more valuable than a stranger? You might say they are all of equal value but value is subjective, so we need to ask you how you value each. Would you save your sister as opposed to someone you worked with? Would you save a friend over a complete stranger? Would you save the young child over the old mass murderer?

I guess so in every case. So their value changes depending on context.

But aren’t people created equally? Yes they are. But are all people equal in worth to society? Obviously not. The child rapist cannot be considerd equal to the child. So do they have inherent value outside of worth to society and excluding familial ties?

Everyone has inherent value in that we should treat them judicially and fairly and according to the golden rule. That is, treat all others as you would expect to be treated. There is nothing more than that.

In regard to abortion, you need to convince someone that what the mother is carrying can be considered a person, in that person’s definition. I don’t consider, for example, the few cells in existence shortly after conception to be a person, so everything I said above doesn’t apply.

 

[poche]

This is based on natural law. I respect you and you respect me. Human life has value. aka Don’t kill me and I wont kill you.

 

[STT]

The reality is indifferent, life is not.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That human life has value isn’t really provable.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

How can the inherent value of every life, especially in regard to the unborn, be explained soundly to atheists?

It has been. Some people just don’t accept it.

I’ve come across the argument that something doesn’t have value unless there is someone to value it. How could I answer this?

Value is a very broad term. That is essentially why that is a stupid statement. But, putting it’s stupidity aside…value, in general, isn’t necessarily decided upon by a person. There is such a thing as inherent value. For example, water is valuable to animals. The truth of that fact doesn’t rely upon someone’s declaration of value in order to be true.

 

[Guest1]

Have you tried looking on Catholic Answers website to see if Trent Horn for example answered this?

 

[Guest1]

Relativism and Abortion | Catholic Answers Video

 

[Guest1]

Atheism vs. Human Worth | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Wesrock]

That human life has value isn’t really provable.

It’s not a quantifiable thing for science to measure all on its lonesome. I think the value of all being and especially human life is arguable through a discussion of metaphysics, ontology, and natural law, though if an atheist followed your points they probably wouldn’t be atheist anymore. It’s a long way around to an answer.

I find ethical beliefs which lack a concept of objective value to be very incoherent, though, and can’t get around an infinite regress of a lack of explanation, and ultimate are just dependent upon “because we say so” as a brute fact.

 

[IWantGod]

How can the inherent value of every life, especially in regard to the unborn, be explained soundly to atheists?
I’ve come across the argument that something doesn’t have value unless there is someone to value it. How could I answer this?

The only being that can answer this is God. Ontologically speaking, Our ultimate origin defines what we ultimately our. If our origin is God’s eternal love, and if God’s nature is the very good that makes it possible for us to be real, then our activities in the world and that which is in our hearts and minds will be defined objectively by that standard because God is the very being by which we exist at all.

But if you don’t believe in that kind of God, If you don’t believe that love sustains our very existence and that love is ultimate reality, then morality is merely the projection of our emotional states which are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. Whatever moral truth we think exists in those experiences is just an illusion. That being said, i would say that the very existence of those experiences implies the existence of moral truth and we don’t really have a good enough reason to think that moral law does not exist.

My time debating these issues have often lead to the atheist saying that the only evidence they will accept is scientific evidence. I call this the plague of scientism. So there is a whole lot of epistemological and metaphysical ground work to consider before ever getting close to what one might call an agreement on the matter.

 

[PRmerger]

Hiya, Bradskii!

I’ve been off the forums for a while…but came back because I missed our dialogues!

So…if I can figure out how to navigate through this new-fangled system, I’d like to ask you what your definition of a person is. You said it’s not a just a few cells…how many cells do you have to have to be a person in your eyes? And what’s your justification for asserting this particular number?

 

[Bradskii]

Hiya, Bradskii!

I’ve been off the forums for a while…but came back because I missed our dialogues!

So…if I can figure out how to navigate through this new-fangled system, I’d like to ask you what your definition of a person is. You said it’s not a just a few cells…how many cells do you have to have to be a person in your eyes? And what’s your justification for asserting this particular number?

Hey, PR. Nice to see you back. Hope the family is well. This forum is not what it used to be but we persist…

As regards quoting a few cells (whatever I did quote), I did so because literally a few cells does not constitute a person in my opinion. It is a potential person and they are human cells. But I have no problem in any woman deciding to terminate at that point - just a few days after conception.

But I would have a problem if she were to decide to terminate a few days before birth.

But therein lies the problem. Some things are not black and white. There is no magic point at which it’s acceptable and one where it is not. And it’s nonsensical trying to find out what that point is - unless one does make it black and white and say that it is wrong at all points.

I accept that some people hold to that. And I personally would prefer it if no abortions were carried out - I am not pro abortion.

But if you want a specific point at which it becomes unacceptable then you won’t get one from me. Not because I won’t give one. It’s because it doesn’t exist.

 

[Elf01]

And I personally would prefer it if no abortions were carried out - I am not pro abortion.

Why would you prefer that?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And I personally would prefer it if no abortions were carried out - I am not pro abortion.

Why would you prefer that?

Because I realise that some women consider it a difficult, if not traumatic decision to make. In an ideal world there would be 100% guaranteed contraception. In an ideal world, women would only get pregnant if they wanted to. In an ideal world…ah, but we don’t have that ideal world. The world we live in is messy and complicated.

You can make a choice to ignore that and make black and white decisions if you so choose.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

According to unicef around 29,000 children die every day as a result of grinding poverty and preventable disease. This is around two holocausts a year, and it almost goes unnoticed.

 

[PRmerger]

Testing…the email says by responding via email I can respond?

So…did you, by chance, add an “i” to your name? Or have I been misspelling your name as “Bradski” all these years?


Bradskii

    March 18

PRmerger:
Hiya, Bradskii!

I’ve been off the forums for a while…but came back because I missed our dialogues!

So…if I can figure out how to navigate through this new-fangled system, I’d like to ask you what your definition of a person is. You said it’s not a just a few cells…how many cells do you have to have to be a person in your eyes? And what’s your justification for asserting this particular number?

Hey, PR. Nice to see you back. Hope the family is well. This forum is not what it used to be but we persist…

As regards quoting a few cells (whatever I did quote), I did so because literally a few cells does not constitute a person in my opinion. It is a potential person and they are human cells. But I have no problem in any woman deciding to terminate at that point - just a few days after conception.

But I would have a problem if she were to decide to terminate a few days before birth.

But therein lies the problem. Some things are not black and white. There is no magic point at which it’s acceptable and one where it is not. And it’s nonsensical trying to find out what that point is - unless one does make it black and white and say that it is wrong at all points.

I accept that some people hold to that. And I personally would prefer it if no abortions were carried out - I am not pro abortion.

But if you want a specific point at which it becomes unacceptable then you won’t get one from me. Not because I won’t give one. It’s because it doesn’t exist.

 

[PRmerger]

So, a few cells is not a person…What is a person, in your opinion?

And do you think, then, that personhood is somehow gained by getting bigger, or growing older?

Also, if you’re not sure if that’s a tiny human person in there (it may be still just a clump of cells, but, according to you, at some point it turns into a person with value who shouldn’t be killed), shouldn’t the default position be: do not kill that organism since we’re not sure if it’s a person? After all, if you’re hunting in the woods, and see a shadow, and you’re not sure if it’s a person, or your bear, wouldn’t the judicious thing to do would be to NOT shoot, just in case it actually is a person?

 

[PRmerger]

I would have to disagree with you here.

We are not given personhood based on what we can “do”…but rather on who we are.

Making personhood dependent upon what we do is treacherously close to ableism. “The one who can ‘do’ the most is the best person”. Disabled individuals, then, who can’t “do” would then be subject to discrimination because, after all, they can’t “do” as much as we can “do”.


YoungSheldon

    March 18

PRmerger:
So, a few cells is not a person…What is a person, in your opinion?

Even though the question is directed to Bradskii, I will give you my opinion on it. Let’s start with a fully grown human being, and gradually replace her organs with either a transplant, or an artificial prosthesis (which works the same way as the original) - up until only the brain remains. Obviously this process will NOT alter the “personhood”. Can we agree on this?

So the personhood is not contingent upon the “building” material. It is contingent upon the activity of the organism.

Or, let’s remove only the brain, and keep all the rest. In a short time the body will deteriorate and die, due to the removal of the regulatory functions of the brain. As a matter of fact, “death” is declared when the brain activity ceases and becomes irreversible.

So the final conclusion is that we become “persons” when our brain activity starts. That is all. Using the famous Forrest Gump expression, “person is as person does”. If we can replace ALL the organs (the brain included) with artificial prostheses, the final product (call it a cyborg, or a fully artificial being) is a person.

 

[SeekSalvation]

I don’t consider, for example, the few cells in existence shortly after conception to be a person, so everything I said above doesn’t apply.

Which to your original point is a very “subjective value”. Personally I disagree, but that too is a very “subjective value”…or is it? Living cells are life after all…“inherent value”.

Twist on your words.