Value of Life Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter ftblwolf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

ftblwolf

Guest
Hello Intellectuals,

So a conversation happened at my job today. A non-denominational Christian asked an athiest/agnostic (I don’t think he even knows which he is) how human life has value. The Christian is of the idea (which I agree with) that the only way human life can have value is if an all loving God exists. Otherwise, it’s just subjective ideas. i.e. contributing to society

Well the response he received was that human life has value because human life is finite. It is only around for a limited period of time. His analogy was that if gold were only around for 3 more days, it would be held up on a high level of value.

How would you respond to this??

Thanks everyone for the help!
 
I’m not sure this is what you’re looking for? I would say human life has value because we were created in the image and likeness of God.
 
My apologies if I was not clear with my initial post.

I’ve many times heard the argument that says that human life has value because an all knowing and loving God that (I forgot to say this part before) created us in the His image and likeness, exists. When asking an atheist/agnostic this question, normally their response is that human life has value because insert some subjective value (i.e. contribution to society, or the ability to reason) But from this response, then the believer can reasonably say that this person would have no problem killing the elderly (because they cannot contribute to society) and killing the mentally ill (because they cannot reason).

Until now, I haven’t heard a legitimate response to this. So I was wondering if anyone had a response to an atheist/agnostic who said human life had value because human life is finite. And because it will no longer exist at a certain point, it is valuable.

Thank you everyone.
 
ftblwolf said:
Until now, I haven’t heard a legitimate response to this. So I was wondering if anyone had a response to an atheist/agnostic who said human life had value because human life is finite. And because it will no longer exist at a certain point, it is valuable.
Click to expand...
:::shrugs::: There are lots of finite things that we don’t consider as valuable as human life.

Take ice cream, for example. I have a carton of ice cream in my fridge that has a much shorter lifespan than I do. Does that make the ice cream more valuable than me?

I’m not clear on what basis your friend is arguing that finite = valuable. Is there a continuum? Is something more or less valuable depending on how long it will be around for? Dogs have shorter lives than humans, are dogs more valuable than humans? On the flip side, humans have shorter lives than oak trees, are humans less valuable than oak trees?

It isn’t at all clear to me that we value things based on how soon they will expire.
 
ftblwolf said:
Well the response he received was that human life has value because human life is finite. It is only around for a limited period of time. His analogy was that if gold were only around for 3 more days, it would be held up on a high level of value.

How would you respond to this??

Thanks everyone for the help!
Click to expand...
As I write this, it’s late Thursday night (actually, very early Friday morning). Our trash is picked up Monday morning.

Our trash is only going to be around for 3 more days, more or less.

And this makes it more valuable???

That’s how I’d respond. Good luck.
 
It’s a completely arbitrary standard–which he himself betrays in his answer: “If gold were only around for three more days, we would hold it up on a high level of value.” It’s humans assigning values based on absolutely nothing.

If the universe is truly random, then value is a human myth. Certainly, there can be no such thing as absolute rights; one can only manage, at best, a “social contract,” which is only useful circumstantially.

This is not proof for the existence of God, but it is a difficult problem that I’ve never heard a secular humanist answer. This is also why, were I to stop being a Christian, I would surely become a hedonist. And not a very nice one, at that.
 
diggerdomer said:
as i write this, it’s late thursday night (actually, very early friday morning). Our trash is picked up monday morning.

Our trash is only going to be around for 3 more days, more or less.

And this makes it more valuable???

That’s how i’d respond. Good luck.
Click to expand...
lol :d
 
ftblwolf said:
His analogy was that if gold were only around for 3 more days, it would be held up on a high level of value.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. If gold only lasted for three more days, it would be essentially valueless. Gold’s value is due, in part, to its scarcity and to the fact that it persists without corrosion. These qualities would not be enhanced by gold being in danger of vanishing.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Thanks everyone for the replies.

I’m not positive if any of these responses would work to refute his statement that life has value because it is finite.

One cannot say that my garbage outside will be gone in three days but that doesn’t make it more valuable because, it being your garbage presupposes the idea that the garbage doesn’t have value to you. (although I understand the point you’re trying to make)

If a new ice cream were to suddenly be invented and it never runs out and never expires and is given to everyone, that ice cream would, probably not have all too much value (provided everyone liked ice cream equally). But if I were to find out that that ice cream is going to expire tomorrow…it’ll suddenly have more value than it had before. (it’s not a perfect comparison but I think you all get the point)

Think of it this way, if life on earth were infinite, then there isn’t much inherent value in the person. It’ll be here tomorrow and next year and so on. But if suddenly, life has a end point (80 years) then I think the agnostic/atheist can rightfully say that that life has value. Maybe?
 
mlchance said:
Nonsense. If gold only lasted for three more days, it would be essentially valueless. Gold’s value is due, in part, to its scarcity and to the fact that it persists without corrosion. These qualities would not be enhanced by gold being in danger of vanishing.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
I think I would disagree, you mention gold being valued in part because of it’s scarcity, but how many of us really care how corrosive it is, rather it’s symbol as a status and how pretty it is. And if the gold/diamond/oil supply were to cease existing tomorrow, everyone that has those things would definitely hold precious items.
 
I guess renewable energy is worthless then. 😉

Why is it so important that we invest in and mandate such a worthless thing?

And why is it so expensive?
 
ftblwolf said:
If a new ice cream were to suddenly be invented and it never runs out and never expires and is given to everyone, that ice cream would, probably not have all too much value (provided everyone liked ice cream equally).
Click to expand...
I think this gets to the root of the problem.

This argument claims that if life is eternal, and ice cream is eternal, then ice cream is worthless, because there is no opportunity cost associated with not consuming the ice cream: You can always do it later, so there’s no disadvantage to doing something else right now.

But all that assumes that the “value” of ice cream depends solely on scarcity and opportunity cost. That’s not what we’re talking about when we say that human life has value. What we’re actually saying is that human life has intrinsic positive qualities that don’t depend on how long that life exists. (Or, to put it simply: Eternal, universal ice cream doesn’t cease to taste good!)

Before I could accept the argument from finiteness, the agnostic needs to explain why I should accept his definition of “value.”
 
Life is priceless exactly because it is eternal!

Our merciful Creator, God, loves us so much that He gives us freedom to chose between right and wrong. The catch is that we determine our eternal fate based on which we choose!

The Good News is that we get unlimited “do-overs” (God’s Mercy), as long as we admit our mistakes and are truly sorry for them and try to do better.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark
 
The only possibility for assigning any objective, non-arbitrary value to life is if one adopts two premises, both of which are somewhat contrary to existing belief systems, including atheism.
  1. Cartesian dualism is essentially correct: The human being is a combination of eternal soul and short-lived body.
(Corollary: the body is a temporary device of no particular long-term value. Any potential value lies in the soul, a potentially conscious entity.)
  1. The soul is a non-created entity.
(If it has not been created, it has no beginning, and therefore potentially has no end. Thus, like gold, it has value as a potential long term component of the universe.)

(However if the soul is a created entity, then whatever or whoever created it can also make it go away. That makes it temporary. something which exists at the whim of other forces. The value of short-lived entities is always a short-lived value, assigned arbitrarily by short-lived and often short-sighted entities.)
 
Slugs, snails and insects are around for a much shorter time period than humans. Does that make them more valuable?

I like the comment made about the trash.

Atheists really puzzle me. If they don’t believe in God, frankly, I don’t understand what keeps them going in this miserable world of pain and suffering. It’s a sad thing, really. I feel sorry for them.
 
ftblwolf said:
My apologies if I was not clear with my initial post.

I’ve many times heard the argument that says that human life has value because an all knowing and loving God that (I forgot to say this part before) created us in the His image and likeness, exists. When asking an atheist/agnostic this question, normally their response is that human life has value because insert some subjective value (i.e. contribution to society, or the ability to reason) But from this response, then the believer can reasonably say that this person would have no problem killing the elderly (because they cannot contribute to society) and killing the mentally ill (because they cannot reason).

Until now, I haven’t heard a legitimate response to this. So I was wondering if anyone had a response to an atheist/agnostic who said human life had value because human life is finite. And because it will no longer exist at a certain point, it is valuable.

Thank you everyone.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that make the life of a microbe more valuable, since it’s around for a shorter time? Does it make the life of an annual flower more valuable than a thousand-year-old redwood? Does it make the life of the flower more valuable than that of Grandpa?
 
Thanks everyone for the awesome replies! I greatly appreciate this and look forward to learning much more from all of you. Thanks again! 😃
 
ftblwolf said:
Hello Intellectuals,

So a conversation happened at my job today. A non-denominational Christian asked an athiest/agnostic (I don’t think he even knows which he is) how human life has value. The Christian is of the idea (which I agree with) that the only way human life can have value is if an all loving God exists. Otherwise, it’s just subjective ideas. i.e. contributing to society

Well the response he received was that human life has value because human life is finite. It is only around for a limited period of time. His analogy was that if gold were only around for 3 more days, it would be held up on a high level of value.

How would you respond to this??

Thanks everyone for the help!
Click to expand...
JL: If gold were only around around for 3 more days, I would be dumping my gold as soon as possible. I think it would loose value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top