Life's Worth

[CSmrw]

I understand that without life nothing else matters to the individual, practically. But sometimes I see the things people say about how the world works and I wonder at just how much like a drug "life" has become. I see people ready to trade almost anything for life, including intellectual freedom and liberty, and I ask myself how I would have felt, in an LCV about to dump me onto the beaches of Normandy or Tarawa, if I knew how little my sacrifice would really end up meaning to so many people in 60 years. It's fine talk to spurt about honor and respect, but when you really back someone into a corner I find more and more often this is just repeated propaganda and not real awareness of what sacrifice means in the cause of a free society and a progressive people.

So the question is at what point would you trade your life for principal? What matters enough to cause you to give the one thing you may still own away? How much liberty will you trade for security? What would it take to make you give up your family? Your neighborhood?

Finally, theists, would you be willing to make the sacrifice if there were no God? If it meant simply the end if you and nothing else for you?

 

[Spherical Time]

It wouldn't take much. I'd give my life for the life of another, given the opportunity, even though I know there's nothing more after this.

I'd have to know it though, not be guessing. Surity is where I'd cross the line.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

If you had to kill to survive, you should let yourself die. This is altruism practiced to the furthest extent, the moral thing to do.

 

[TheMissus]

Self preservation is part of human nature.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

In your opinion.

 

[TheMissus]

So prove me wrong. Everything I've read concerning the topic suggests that self-preservation is instictive. Without self-preservation as an instict, the species dies. Without self-preservation, people wouldn't flee a tornado or a hurricane. People wouldn't flee a burning building. People wouldn't have the "fight or flight" instict if not for the instinct of self-preservation.

If self-preservation weren't ingrained in human nature, selfless acts of sacrifice wouldn't be at all remarkable. It's not a matter of my opinion.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Well I consider instinct a behaviour trait which cannot ever be changed and is ingrained within the species always.

This is simply not true of humans or animals as many examples show.

My belief is that the only instinct within humans and animals is the instinct of the creation power, wether or not that is good we will see.

 

[CSmrw]

Self preservation and preservation of the species are instincts I think, but humans are the one animal capable of bypassing instinct through forethought. And I think this is where my question is dorected. You have choice in this instance. What would you willingly die for?

 

[TheMissus]

Well I consider instinct a behaviour trait which cannot ever be changed and is ingrained within the species always.

This is simply not true of humans or animals as many examples show.

My belief is that the only instinct within humans and animals is the instinct of the creation power, wether or not that is good we will see.

Instincts can be overcome. Even the most basic needs can be ignored by the force of human will. Your definition of instinct is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion that is at odds with the accepted notion of human instincts.

By your definition of instinct, procreation isn't an instinct either, because many people choose to be celibate.

In response to the OP, I would sacrifice myself to save the people I love. I really don't know what I would do if the scenario involved strangers, though. I think my self-preservation would win out. It's hard to say when speaking in hypotheticals, though.

 

[Skaloop]

If you had to kill to survive, you should let yourself die. This is altruism practiced to the furthest extent, the moral thing to do.

We all kill to survive.

 

[CSmrw]

Instincts can be overcome. Even the most basic needs can be ignored by the force of human will. Your definition of instinct is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion that is at odds with the accepted notion of human instincts.

By your definition of instinct, procreation isn't an instinct either, because many people choose to be celibate.

In response to the OP, I would sacrifice myself to save the people I love. I really don't know what I would do if the scenario involved strangers, though. I think my self-preservation would win out. It's hard to say when speaking in hypotheticals, though.

I know hypotheticals are silly. But the list of hypothetical reaons I can come up with is vast, you know?

I would die for my country's principals. I would die for my wife and son. And perhaps most everyone's else's wives and sons. I would die for a really good chance at creating a better world.

But a harder scenario might be what would you allow the death of your most beloved for? WOuld I give my son for my country? My wife for your children? God gave his son for humanity, so the story goes. I would too, actually. Of course it's not my choice to make, but this is hypothetical.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Misses forget the word then. What I'm referring to is the idea that every animal including humans has within them the god morality, which may be supressed and is in so many, may never be expressed, but it is there in all.

Skaloop this is what must change.

 

[Skaloop]

Skaloop this is what must change.

Then how do you propose we survive? We must kill in order to maintain our bodies. Every meal is a meal of death.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Well it is true that if we eat a meal of grains and fruits, that the grains have fruits have been killed as they were indeed living. To clarify what must end is killing of sentient life. Truthism states that killing non sentient life is morally acceptable, as it has no awareness of pleasure, contentment or suffering. You are not taking away anything from a non sentient life by killing it, nor causing suffering.

 

[Skaloop]

Well it is true that if we eat a meal of grains and fruits, that the grains have fruits have been killed as they were indeed living. To clarify what must end is killing of sentient life. Truthism states that killing non sentient life is morally acceptable, as it has no awareness of pleasure, contentment or suffering. You are not taking away anything from a non sentient life by killing it, nor causing suffering.

It's possible to kill sentient life without allowing it to suffer. In doing so, you are taking no more away from it than you would by killing non-sentient life.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Maybe, but being sentient it is not our place to take away it's life.

 

[TheMissus]

6 billion humans encroach on habitats of other sentient beings, causing them to die. How would you propose we solve that problem?

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Our collective lack of care for their habitats is one part of the problem. There is a lot of space still to be used on this planet, and we could create land for animals to live on. Ideally animals would live side by side with us roaming the streets.

 

[Skaloop]

Maybe, but being sentient it is not our place to take away it's life.

But don't we have dominion over the animals?

Regardless, why is sentience the cutting off point, and how do you define sentience? Is a mosquito sentient? Is a jellyfish sentient? Is a fertilized ovum sentient? Why is a sentient life form more worthy of not being killed than a non-sentient life form?

Even if we were to stick to vegetation, what of the animal deaths during harvesting that are practically unavoidable?

 

[Skaloop]

Ideally animals would live side by side with us roaming the streets.

And many of them would not hesitate to attack and kill us for their dinner.