Human Value

[public hermit]

I think 'C' is regnant, and probably has dominated over most of history

I didn't think about it that way, but I think that might be right. In practice, humans can have a tendency to see some as having value and some as not, either because they think humans of value exhibit certain properties or because of there own idiosyncrasies.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I didn't think about it that way, but I think that might be right. In practice, humans can have a tendency to see some as having value and some as not, either because they think humans of value exhibit certain properties or because of there own idiosyncrasies.

We're really good at devaluing others.

 

[Halbhh]

What is the basis of human value? If one doesn't consider humans to be created in the image of God, which is often considered a basis for human value for some theists, what confers human value, if anything? There are a number of religious conceptions and non-religious conceptions possible here, I assume.

Do humans have inherent value? If so, how so? If not, why not?

Here are some possibilities that come to my mind, if we assume human value has no transcendent, metaphysical (inherent) basis, resting solely (if at all) on properties of being human:

A. All humans have value due to a conjunction of properties that all humans share, e.g. all humans are alive + all have potential to contribute to the common well-being + all care about their own well-being, etc. (The list of properties might be very different than these, but there are some properties that all humans share that confers value on the every member of the whole).

B. All humans have value because we value ourselves and by an act of empathy can see others as being similar, with similar wants and needs. (This would be something like the golden rule-treat others as you want to be treated-which seems to be ubiquitous among the world's religions and philosophies.)

C. Only some humans have value based on their peculiar set of properties. There are a couple possibilities here.
1. All humans of value share similar properties (intelligent + cooperative + contributes to the well-being of all + industrious). (These, again, could be very different, but all humans of value share similar properties. Also, those who don't share that set are not of value.)
2. Some humans are of value, but they might have radically different sets of value-conferring properties and they only have value in relation to some people. (For example, there are some people that have value according to me for various reasons. There is a different set that has value to you. Human value is idiosyncratic to the one who confers human value.)

I am sure there are other possibilities. And, it might be that some hold that no humans have value, which I would be really interested in hearing more about.

Humans seem (are) valuable to us if we love them.

An interesting (and crucial) corollary for Christians: love is vastly more helpful than mere preaching against whatever sins we wish others would not do.

 

[public hermit]

An interesting (and crucial) corollary for Christians: love is vastly more helpful than mere preaching against whatever sins we wish others would not do

Amen.

 

[Whyayeman]

A. All humans have value due to a conjunction of properties that all humans share.

B. All humans have value because we value ourselves and by an act of empathy can see others as being similar, with similar wants and needs.

I agree with A. and B. Maybe the second statement is an explanation of why we believe (if we do) that the first is true.

I have to abhor C.

 

[Whyayeman]

An interesting (and crucial) corollary for Christians: love is vastly more helpful than mere preaching against whatever sins we wish others would not do.

I agree with this too. Love for our fellows is a universal feature of human societies, not confined to the religious.

 

[Halbhh]

An interesting (and crucial) corollary for Christians: love is vastly more helpful than mere preaching against whatever sins we wish others would not do.

I agree with this too. Love for our fellows is a universal feature of human societies, not confined to the religious.

Of course love isn't only from religious people!

But, we get an instruction that goes further than you'd think:

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"

So....we are to love not only those we like or that we want to be nice to, but even those that have acted against us.

That instruction goes past human nature, don't you agree? Of course that extension to all people even enemies is not present in all societies through time as a standard practice, but instead just the opposite: to get revenge is far more universal.

 

[dlamberth]

I think the real value that needs to be looked at is Nature itself. Human Beings are a part of Nature. Because of that I don't see how any value of Human Beings can honestly be considered outside of Nature as a whole.

 

[dlamberth]

I agree with this too. Love for our fellows is a universal feature of human societies, not confined to the religious.

I read, and I believe it to be true, is that among all of the live forms on Earth, it's we Human Beings that are effected by Love the most.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What is the basis of human value? If one doesn't consider humans to be created in the image of God, which is often considered a basis for human value for some theists, what confers human value, if anything? There are a number of religious conceptions and non-religious conceptions possible here, I assume.

Do humans have inherent value? If so, how so? If not, why not?

Here are some possibilities that come to my mind, if we assume human value has no transcendent, metaphysical (inherent) basis, resting solely (if at all) on properties of being human:

A. All humans have value due to a conjunction of properties that all humans share, e.g. all humans are alive + all have potential to contribute to the common well-being + all care about their own well-being, etc. (The list of properties might be very different than these, but there are some properties that all humans share that confers value on the every member of the whole).

B. All humans have value because we value ourselves and by an act of empathy can see others as being similar, with similar wants and needs. (This would be something like the golden rule-treat others as you want to be treated-which seems to be ubiquitous among the world's religions and philosophies.)

C. Only some humans have value based on their peculiar set of properties. There are a couple possibilities here.
1. All humans of value share similar properties (intelligent + cooperative + contributes to the well-being of all + industrious). (These, again, could be very different, but all humans of value share similar properties. Also, those who don't share that set are not of value.)
2. Some humans are of value, but they might have radically different sets of value-conferring properties and they only have value in relation to some people. (For example, there are some people that have value according to me for various reasons. There is a different set that has value to you. Human value is idiosyncratic to the one who confers human value.)

I am sure there are other possibilities. And, it might be that some hold that no humans have value, which I would be really interested in hearing more about.

Yeah, that is a loaded question. Of value to whom? There is no intrinsic value. A valuer requires a valuer and something to value. Therefore value rests in the relationship between a human mind and something in reality. It rests between some subject of consciousness and some object of consciousness. Value is not in the object apart from the subject and it is not in the subject apart from the object. Hence, the basis of moral values is the primacy of existence principle.

 

[disciple Clint]

What is the basis of human value? If one doesn't consider humans to be created in the image of God, which is often considered a basis for human value for some theists, what confers human value, if anything? There are a number of religious conceptions and non-religious conceptions possible here, I assume.

Do humans have inherent value? If so, how so? If not, why not?

Here are some possibilities that come to my mind, if we assume human value has no transcendent, metaphysical (inherent) basis, resting solely (if at all) on properties of being human:

A. All humans have value due to a conjunction of properties that all humans share, e.g. all humans are alive + all have potential to contribute to the common well-being + all care about their own well-being, etc. (The list of properties might be very different than these, but there are some properties that all humans share that confers value on the every member of the whole).

B. All humans have value because we value ourselves and by an act of empathy can see others as being similar, with similar wants and needs. (This would be something like the golden rule-treat others as you want to be treated-which seems to be ubiquitous among the world's religions and philosophies.)

C. Only some humans have value based on their peculiar set of properties. There are a couple possibilities here.
1. All humans of value share similar properties (intelligent + cooperative + contributes to the well-being of all + industrious). (These, again, could be very different, but all humans of value share similar properties. Also, those who don't share that set are not of value.)
2. Some humans are of value, but they might have radically different sets of value-conferring properties and they only have value in relation to some people. (For example, there are some people that have value according to me for various reasons. There is a different set that has value to you. Human value is idiosyncratic to the one who confers human value.)

I am sure there are other possibilities. And, it might be that some hold that no humans have value, which I would be really interested in hearing more about.

You are expecting humans to value each other, that has not proven to be typical human behavior. Unfortunately what has been typical is looking for differences of any kind and then diminishing the value of those who have differences of any kind. These differences have been sex, family line, skin color, wealth, religion, geographic location, educational level, political views and on and on. It seems that many humans are only happy when they feel superior to someone else. I believe that when we narrow everything down to you and I were both made in the image of God and disregard all of the other differences we have the best opportunity to accept and love each other.

 

[public hermit]

Yeah, that is a loaded question. Of value to whom? There is no intrinsic value. A valuer requires a valuer and something to value. Therefore value rests in the relationship between a human mind and something in reality. It rests between some subject of consciousness and some object of consciousness. Value is not in the object apart from the subject and it is not in the subject apart from the object. Hence, the basis of moral values is the primacy of existence principle.

It looks like C2 is what you're looking for, or something similar.

 

[durangodawood]

It looks like C2 is what you're looking for, or something similar.

How can anything just "have value"? Value is essentially a verb. A valuer does it. The noun form only follows from the action.

How can a thing "have value" if no one values it?

 

[public hermit]

How can anything just "have value"? Value is essentially a verb. A valuer does it. The noun form only follows from the action.

How can a thing "have value" if no one values it?

Well, exactly. The assumption of A through C is that value is being conferred or at least picked out according to what is valued, it's not inherent. We, the subjects, pick out properties of others that we value. If these values are not shared by multiple persons then we're left with C2, where value is solely based on idiosyncratic differences.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, exactly. The assumption of A through C is that value is being conferred or at least picked out according to what is valued, it's not inherent. We, the subjects, pick out properties of others that we value. If these values are not shared by multiple persons then we're left with C2, where value is solely based on idiosyncratic differences.

I guess I dont see how value as a verb implies it must be idiosyncratic (C). Generic valuing of other humans could well be ubiquitously hard wired, as in natural empathy, or drummed into us via religion of other indoctrination.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

It looks like C2 is what you're looking for, or something similar.

I think it's important to define what a value is. A value is something that we act to gain or keep because it supports our life or adds to the enjoyment of our life. I value my life, therefore I act to gain or keep it. I value others if they share my values. I look for people to have relationships with who are honest, trustworthy, intelligent, productive, creative, make good conversation, are just fun to be around. I seek to avoid people who are toxic, gossip, are not trustworthy, racist, irrational, and just not fun to be around. If value requires a valuer then there's no problem because I can be that valuer.

 

[public hermit]

I guess I dont see how value as a verb implies it must be idiosyncratic (C). Generic valuing of other humans could well be ubiquitously hard wired, as in natural empathy, or drummed into us via religion of other indoctrination.

You could be correct. I'm not saying any of the options must be the case. By idiosyncratic, I just mean how humans are percieved as having value, or being seen as valuable, depends on individual subjects and what they value in others, if at all. In other words, it's a matter of personal taste.

As I stated, the options are possible accounts from me just reflecting on the possibilities. I'm curious of how it might be.

I could be wrong, but I am assuming that lots of people believe others have value, and not always because of a specific religious worldview, like Christianity. Of that group, some will say all humans have value simply because they're human. I tried to capture that group in A. Why do all humans have value, in this case? Maybe there is a property, or conjunction of properties, all humans share that makes them valuable.

Others might say all humans have value because I value myself, they are like me, so they also have value in that they value themselves. I tried to capture that group by B.

Others might hold that some people have value and some don't. That's what I was trying to do with C.

It might be, as has come up in this thread, that human value is assumed on the front end for practical reasons, e.g. the common good or general well-being of a group, or society, or humanity in general.

Then, some might say humans don't have any value. I think that's a hard one for most people because in practice they act as if others are valuable to them (family, friends, employers, whatever).

And why is the notion of human value important? I think most ethics assume humans have value, even if only for pragmatic reasons. I think most people assume humans are valuable and that is why morality matters. But, I would be interested to hear a different perspective.

 

[public hermit]

I think it's important to define what a value is. A value is something that we act to gain or keep because it supports our life or adds to the enjoyment of our life. I value my life, therefore I act to gain or keep it. I value others if they share my values. I look for people to have relationships with who are honest, trustworthy, intelligent, productive, creative, make good conversation, are just fun to be around. I seek to avoid people who are toxic, gossip, are not trustworthy, racist, irrational, and just not fun to be around. If value requires a valuer then there's no problem because I can be that valuer.

Yes, you are the valuer. And you have listed a set of properties that, to you, others exhibit that you value (based on the fact you value your life), e.g. honesty, trustworthiness, etc. And you listed properties others exhibit that you don't value, e.g. racist, irrational, etc.

You don't seem to hold that humans have value to you simply because they're human. Human value is not inherent, nor are some value making properties shared by all humans, so that you would say all humans have value. Or, maybe you would. Do you think all humans are valuable or have value in relation to you?

 

[FireDragon76]

Human rights rhetoric was merely convenient rhetoric for Capitalists to use against the Reds, but they were never all that sincere themselves in the first place.

History has shown that people are going to generally value their in-group, and devalue out groups, and everything written in a suppossedly holy book won't change that.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yes, you are the valuer. And you have listed a set of properties that, to you, others exhibit that you value (based on the fact you value your life), e.g. honesty, trustworthiness, etc. And you listed properties others exhibit that you don't value, e.g. racist, irrational, etc.

You don't seem to hold that humans have value to you simply because they're human. Human value is not inherent, nor are some value making properties shared by all humans, so that you would say all humans have value. Or, maybe you would. Do you think all humans are valuable or have value in relation to you?

I have basic regard for all people starting out based on their potential. Whether they rise or fall in my judgment depends on their virtues.