Inherent Value of life (secular)

[Bradskii]

Some might claim that an atheist perspective implies a complete lack of any purpose or meaning to life, so whether one lives or dies is inconsequential, objectively speaking because all there is is particles of matter randomly interacting. There is nothing like an “inherent value” based upon the physical and chemical interactions of particles of matter. The material order, according to the atheist, just is as a brute fact. No meaning, no purpose, no significance. Period.

That’s quite correct Harry. Zero inherent value. It’s just the value that we each place on things. Although there are generally consequences when someone dies, seeing as we place value on that someone. But glad to see you keeping up with the latest atheist thinking. The few atheists here will be pleased to know that what they post hasn’t been entirely ignored.

That means what follows from atheism is whatever morality a random arrangement of chemicals happens to come up with. Hitler’s “sense of life” is as valid as Gandhi’s, since there is no inherent value to be had.

Correct again. We’re on a roll here. Except for a small omission which I must pull you up on. Some people may have read that you meant that Hitler’s morality is as valid as Gandhi’s. When what you probably meant to have said is that his morality is valid to him. As is Gandhi’s to Gandhi. But as I’m sure that you know, they were both different.

The question then becomes, which is the better. Which is a choice we have to make after listening to the arguments.

 

[jochoa]

When what you probably meant to have said is that his morality is valid to him.

Your point of relativity has been best summed up by YoungSheldon.
“We become ‘persons’ when brain activity starts,” because when brain activity starts there is a unique “me” that has personal values, regardless of the quality of value the young brain can ponder.

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s quite correct Harry. Zero inherent value.

I suppose the fact that we have “zero inherent value” implies that the value we impart on the people and things around us is also of zero value? Meaning no real value, correct?

How much value – in comparison, I mean – do you suppose the God, who creates and sustains all in existence, would impart? Also zero?

Or do you think God, defined as the necessary ground of existence, would actually bring value to the table? If he actually exists, that is. Speaking theoretically.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I suppose you also operate under the misconception that acorns are not oak trees.

The problem is if oak trees have gone extinct from the earth and the only one left happens to be in the form of an acorn, that acorn holds within it the potential not merely to be one oak tree but a forest of them. Oak trees are monoecious.

Ergo an acorn is, in effect, a forest of oak trees.

Thank you for the laugh of the century!

Don’t forget to assert that an omelette is a fried chicken. Every U235 atom is an atomic bomb. Also, if the only requirement is to have a specific DNA, then every tumor is a “baybee”.

Yes, all that was said with utmost sarcasm!

Actually it seemed more like disdain.

But when there is no counter argument, some get quite desperate.

You haven’t studied genetics much, then?

Now we know where the “Badger” part of your moniker comes from. The “Honey” part remains elusive.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

When what you probably meant to have said is that his morality is valid to him.

Your point of relativity has been best summed up by YoungSheldon.
“We become ‘persons’ when brain activity starts,” because when brain activity starts there is a unique “me” that has personal values, regardless of the quality of value the young brain can ponder.

I’m not sure that you could describe simple brain activity as the definition of a moral agent. A person in a vegatative state would have brain activity but could not be described as a moral agent. Likewise a foetus.

In fact, most psychologists would suggest that one doesn’t start acting morally until the age of two.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

That’s quite correct Harry. Zero inherent value.

I suppose the fact that we have “zero inherent value” implies that the value we impart on the people and things around us is also of zero value? Meaning no real value, correct?

I have just spent a couple of posts saying exactly the opposite. Why would you think I would agree to that?

How much value is inherent in a rock? A plain, ordinary lump of sandstone. What’s that you say? You need to know what it’s being used for? Well of course you do. If it’s just lying on the ground then it has no value. But if I want to break a window to save someone in a fire then it becomes extremely valuable.

 

[Bradskii]

Is this in favor of inherent value or of subjective value?

Uh? Am I losing my ability to explain things clearly?

Nothing has inherent value. Only value that we impart to that thing. The above was explaining that. Rather badly it seems.

 

[jochoa]

I’m not sure that you could describe simple brain activity as the definition of a moral agent. A person in a vegatative state would have brain activity but could not be described as a moral agent. Likewise a foetus.

This is another appeal to the quality of the value, which avoids the recognition that every life has values. Even animals and insects value things without consideration of right and wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I’m not sure that you could describe simple brain activity as the definition of a moral agent. A person in a vegatative state would have brain activity but could not be described as a moral agent. Likewise a foetus.

This is another appeal to the quality of the value, which avoids the recognition that every life has values. Even animals and insects value things without consideration of right and wrong.

Every life has value because there will always be someone who values that particular life. If I were the last person on earth I would have no value. Well, except to me.

And right or wrong are not concepts we should be using with the term value. We are not concerned with value when discussing the rock in the earlier example. And it isn’t right or wrong if an insect values leaf mulch over dung.

 

[HarryStotle]

Don’t forget to assert that an omelette is a fried chicken. Every U235 atom is an atomic bomb. Also, if the only requirement is to have a specific DNA, then every tumor is a “baybee”.

Just to be clear, when you propose analogs or analogical arguments, you need to get your terms and logic just a tad tighter.

This is the form of an analogical argument:

1. S is similar to T in certain (known) respects.
2. S has some further feature Q .
3. Therefore, T also has the feature Q , or some feature Q* similar to Q .

---

The argument breaks down as follows:

1. S [an acorn] is similar to T [a human embryo] in certain known respects. I.e., they each develop into the kind of living thing they are genetically designed to be. In short, they are each the embryonic form of the mature species they represent.
2. S [a single acorn] can be shown to have Q [the same value] as a mature oak, and, indeed, a forest of oak trees, as demonstrated by the last acorn/oak scenario.
   3 Therefore T [a human embryo] can be shown to have Q [the same] or Q* [similar value] as a mature human being, because like S [an acorn], a T [human embryo] will – all things being equal – develop into a mature human being.

---

Your analogs don’t work because…

1. An omelette will never mature into a fried chicken.
2. A U235 atom will not “mature” into an atom bomb.
3. A tumor will never develop into a “baybee.”

Now, your clumsy attempts to produce analogies may not be so effective at provoking laughter in the rest of us as your inability to actually grasp the concept of an analogy, but that is because the rest of us have been raised by our mothers not to laugh at the foibles of others.

 

[HarryStotle]

VanitasVanitatum:

Is this in favor of inherent value or of subjective value?

Uh? Am I losing my ability to explain things clearly?

Nothing has inherent value. Only value that we impart to that thing. The above was explaining that. Rather badly it seems.

If “nothing has inherent value”, then we might assert that the value imparted by a thing that, itself, has NO VALUE, amounts to zero value.

Ergo, value imparted by something, itself, having NO inherent value, amounts to NO value imparted.

So, you haven’t failed to explain your “things” clearly, it is simply that you missed completely where your assumptions get you.

 

[jochoa]

If I were the last person on earth I would have no value. Well, except to me.

Yes, even a sole living person has value. Therefore, every living person has value (secularly).

And right or wrong are not concepts we should be using with the term value.

I agree, you should not have brought the “moral agent” consideration into the discussion.

 

[HarryStotle]

How much value is inherent in a rock? A plain, ordinary lump of sandstone. What’s that you say? You need to know what it’s being used for? Well of course you do. If it’s just lying on the ground then it has no value. But if I want to break a window to save someone in a fire then it becomes extremely valuable.

You appear to be ambiguating different meanings of value.

A rock might be of “practical use” in building a wall or breaking a window. That would be one form of “value.”

Unfortunately, then seeds are of “value,” in much the same sense, to birds who make use of them as food.

That, however, isn’t quite the same meaning as the one you are claiming for how human beings are to value each other. A similar meaning would imply one human being could “value” another as a target when firing their gun, or as a mule to carry their stuff. That hardly imputes any kind of real value on the victim, now does it?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

VanitasVanitatum:

Is this in favor of inherent value or of subjective value?

Uh? Am I losing my ability to explain things clearly?

Nothing has inherent value. Only value that we impart to that thing. The above was explaining that. Rather badly it seems.

If “nothing has inherent value”, then we might assert that the value imparted by a thing that, itself, has NO VALUE, amounts to zero value.

Ergo, imparted value by something, itself, having NO inherent value amounts to NO value imparted.

You might assert it. But you’d need to do more than that for it to be accepted. 'Cos I could just assert: 'No, you are wrong. '. Which I will do until you develop your assertion a little more.

Here’s something to prompt some thought: Two people with no inherrent value. But they have relative value. One is trapped inside a burning car. The other, being an empathetic person and naturally tending to reciprocal altruism, decides that the woman in the car has value and wants to save her. If I need to break the window to save her, how do I view that rock on the floor? An invaluable lump of sandstone or a means to save a life?

 

[Bradskii]

A similar meaning would imply one human being could “value” another as a target when firing their gun, or as a mule to carry their stuff. That hardly imputes any kind of real value on the victim, now does it?

Some people actually think like that. They lack empathy and ignore the feeling of reciprocal altruism. It leads to awful acts.

 

[HarryStotle]

Here’s something to prompt some thought: Two people with no inherrent value. But they have relative value. One is trapped inside a burning car. The other, being an empathetic person and naturally tending to reciprocal altruism, decides that the woman in the car has value and wants to save her. If I need to break the window to save her, how do I view that rock on the floor? An invaluable lump of sandstone or a mans to save a life?

It “prompted” some thought, alright.

What it implies is that the woman trapped in the car has no real value unless the individual outside happens to be an “empathetic” person and decides she has value. Absent that, the woman in the car has no real value according to you because the person outside of the car can decide how much value she is to have.

The woman in the car may have value to herself, but since she is about to be burned alive, it seems her value will vanish like a wisp of smoke in the fire. The person outside the car might conclude: Well she would have had value, if I had decided she did, but since I didn’t, she doesn’t. He then shrugs it off and goes his merry way.

And if someone else comes along, they may decide to shoot the unempathetic person because they have subsequently decided against being empathetic and impute no value on the victim.

Real value, then, seems very tenuous. Hardly the stuff of a robust moral system, since individuals can decide based upon their empathy or lack of it the value to impute to others.

 

[jochoa]

Here’s something to prompt some thought: Two people with no inherrent value. But they have relative value. One is trapped inside a burning car. The other, being an empathetic person and naturally tending to reciprocal altruism, decides that the woman in the car has value and wants to save her. If I need to break the window to save her, how do I view that rock on the floor? An invaluable lump of sandstone or a means to save a life?

In your example, the persons have inherent value because by nature, in the least, each person has valued his/her life. On the other hand, the rock does not secularly have inherent value because the rock cannot naturally value itself.

 

[HarryStotle]

Some people actually think like that. They lack empathy and ignore the feeling of reciprocal altruism. It leads to awful acts.

Awful to you, but if value is merely imputed by some person or other, then the real value of any person is contingent on others valuing them.

And what is awful or valuable depends upon someone valuing it or not.

Unless valuing is an obligatory moral act, no one need feel any compulsion to value others.

There can be no obligation to value others, unless the valuing of others is valuable in itself and not merely pegged to someone’s “decision” to value or not.

Someone could claim, “Valuing others is okay for saps and simpletons, but I am deciding only to value myself and getting all the pleasure I can.”

Since “value” is, according to you, a decision individuals make for themselves, there can be no moral obligation in your ethical system to call such a person immoral. They just value things differently than you.

 

[HarryStotle]

If I were the last person on earth I would have no value. Well, except to me.

A la, Euthyphro:

Do you value yourself because you are valuable?

Or…

Are you valuable because you value yourself?

Most people would say the first.

You, apparently, hold to the second.

Me: Why do you value yourself?
You: Because I do, that’s all. No reason needed. In the act of valuing I am made valuable. Who needs a reason? I don’t actually need to BE valuable, I just have to value myself… …uh… …for no reason, except that I do.

 

[HarryStotle]

If I were the last person on earth I would have no value. Well, except to me.

Bradskii, take it up with Bradskii.

You might assert it. But you’d need to do more than that for it to be accepted. 'Cos I could just assert: 'No, you are wrong. '. Which I will do until you develop your assertion a little more.