Value of Human Life

[dominikus28]

Recently I had a facebook argument with an atheist friend about the value of human life. I’ve decided to stop posting such “controversial” stuff on facebook until I can argue them well, because so far I think I’m losing.

So this friend thinks along the lines of Peter Singer - why should we value human life above that of, let’s say, a dog’s life? If you say, because a human has the capacity for reason, then why should we value a fetus before it develops a brain? A fetus cannot reason. And an Alien for example that would be able to reason would NOT get any rights because it isn’t human?

He says we should value life based on it’s merits. So a fetus cannot think or feel or do anything, so it shouldn’t be given any rights. Likewise someone who is brain-dead should just be allowed to die.

If I mention reason, then he goes back to the fetus.

Also, he claims dogs can “reason”, just not as much as humans. Is this true? Can you either reason or not, or is reason more like a scale rather than a categorical distinction?

 

[GEddie]

I think it would be better to avoid issues of aliens unless and until they are discovered.

My guess is, that aliens, although not human, would have demonstrated by coming here that they have rational-minds at least as good as our own. As such, they would be protected by the Governments of the human world.

The capacity for reason is an either-or of the mind, although some are better at it than others.

IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA

 

[Jelrak_TB]

While dogs may be able to reason it is largely besides the point.

The best approach for dealing with the Atheist is to strike back at the heart of the issue. If no God exists and the world as we know it is a battle for the survival of the fittest then is not the protection of one’s species at the expense of all others the only value worth holding?

Yet here is the Atheist seemingly defending some other creature and elevating it beyond a necessary developmental stage of his own species. This seems an irrational position for a ‘rational’ atheist to hold.

The question then becomes this: is not the proof of Humanity’s supremacy over all animal life, and hence the unquestioned intrinsic value of Human Life, the very fact that it, and it alone, is the only creature who might ever in its entire history seek to elevate a rival creature above that of its own?

Mankind is the only species that has created art in any form. The only one with complex reasoning ability. The only one capable of considering not only why it is here, but where it is from, and where it might be going. It is the only species to have ever had the capacity to consider the stars and to dream about possibilities not even remotely within the scope of the most well meaning dog.

So given the fetus is a necessary developmental stage on the way to such a highly evolved and sentient human creature, what justification may ever exist to seek its premature termination? For is not such a loss of potential to be avoided at all cost for purely rational and pragmatic reasons?

Further, is not respect a basic human tenet? Has not mankind reached new heights of refinement by respecting its own species regardless of its current state? For is it not necessarily the case that the respect of the lowest and most defenseless members of the species serve not only as a buffer to the easily shift-able goal posts that might reduce other nearby individuals to the new lowest placement, but also to remind each of us of how we ourselves should wish to be treated in a similar circumstance? Is not this the unspoken bond that allies humanity to one another? That we have one another’s best interests at heart? That we have one another’s backs? That we will not let one another down even if it might be inconvenient?

Is that not further proof to the supremacy of mankind? For what other species might so protect its own that it might go to such lengths? What other species might provide such a clear and concise proof of the inherent virtue most often touted by the atheist community? The ever favorite excuse for the source of mankind’s morality without the need of God: the virtue of empathy?

Is it truly to believed that the Atheist, who might use this inherent trait to get him out of the source of the moral dilemma, might then suspend such a valuable and ‘inherent’ trait at will due to the possibility of inconvenience? If so, what is now the strength of this purported ‘inherent’ trait? What is its actual value? For how might it now serve as the basic building block of society if it might equally be so readily suspended? Truly in all fairness the Atheist cannot have this both ways.

…alternately you might simply choose to avoid such a lengthy discussion by merely warning your friend that he had best never lose consciousness in the midst of atheists of a like mindset…for what shall prevent these free-thinkers from considering his lack of current reason to be proof of his sudden lack of relevance? Dehumanization is a slippery slope best left untried…

 

[Aloysium]

Human life has dignity by virtue of the fact that it is created by God, who loves us as Father.
Regardless of a person’s capacity to reason, his/her life has value because the person has a soul.
We are required to love one another as we love ourselves.

Without God this all falls apart.
Atheists cling to the remnants of Christian faith with respect to morality and most will argue otherwise.
But, if good and bad are subjective, anything goes.
If we are a collection of molecules, where is the objective reality of human worth?

I would not argue with an atheist about the value of human life.
I would try to show them that their belief system gives no value to the person and holds power to be the ultimate judge.
Any abuse is permitted because the only restraint is that of the other’s ability to control and retaliate.

 

[nodito]

The value of human life cannot be determined on utilitarian grounds, as your friend suggests. A human has value by virtue of being human, because it is made in the image and likeness of God. But as this argument is not persuasive to an athiest, you might point out how dangerous it is to rank human beings based on their capacity to contribute:

If I am fully human but lose my arm in an accident, am I less human the next day? What if I lose both arms? Suppose I become paralyzed. How can a car crash or a diving accident affect a person’s very humanity? Or if your friend undergoes surgery and the doctors anesthetize him while they are operating, is he less human during that surgery? He’s incapable of reason, of feeling pain, and he’s completely useless during that time. Can we ethically kill him if we wish, because at that time he lacks the characteristics necessary to be productive to society? Of course not. Your friend would probably argue that a person undergoing surgery will soon again have capacity to act, reason, think, etc, but then again, this is also true of unborn children…

 

[fhansen]

Recently I had a facebook argument with an atheist friend about the value of human life. I’ve decided to stop posting such “controversial” stuff on facebook until I can argue them well, because so far I think I’m losing.

So this friend thinks along the lines of Peter Singer - why should we value human life above that of, let’s say, a dog’s life? If you say, because a human has the capacity for reason, then why should we value a fetus before it develops a brain? A fetus cannot reason. And an Alien for example that would be able to reason would NOT get any rights because it isn’t human?

He says we should value life based on it’s merits. So a fetus cannot think or feel or do anything, so it shouldn’t be given any rights. Likewise someone who is brain-dead should just be allowed to die.

If I mention reason, then he goes back to the fetus.

Also, he claims dogs can “reason”, just not as much as humans. Is this true? Can you either reason or not, or is reason more like a scale rather than a categorical distinction?

There are two options, logically. One is that we simply admit to not caring whether or not we take a human life, believing it has no value anyway. The other is that we come up with the precise moment when human life becomes, well, human, so that we can determine whether or not a human life is at stake in the case of an intended abortion, for example. Both positions are unacceptable if not downright absurd; the only logical view then is that personhood begins at conception.