Needing justification for morality

[Jeremy E Walker]

What makes something valuable is based on how available something is. I take this as my only life, so it is valuable and I want to make the most of it.

Cool.

That still does not answer my question.

I asked what makes human life intrinsically valuable?

I did not ask what do you think makes your life intrinsically valuable.

What makes homo sapiens intrinsically valuable?

Are the lives of gorillas, or roaches intrinsically valuable?

If not, what makes the homo sapien intrinsically valuable and any other creature not?

 

[bhsmte]

Cool.

That still does not answer my question.

I asked what makes human life intrinsically valuable?

I did not ask what do you think makes your life intrinsically valuable.

What makes homo sapiens intrinsically valuable?

It is not my place to decide what makes anyone else's life intrinsically valuable, that is up to them to decide. But, IMO, each life has one shot and every person is unique.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It is not my place to decide what makes anyone else's life intrinsically valuable, that is up to them to decide. But, IMO, each life has one shot and every person is unique.

So each individual determines whether or not human life is intrinsically valuable?

Is that your view?

 

[bhsmte]

So each individual determines whether or not human life is intrinsically valuable?

Is that your view?

I believe every life has intrinsic value, because each human is unique and gets one chance. What each person does from that point, is up to them.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I believe every life has intrinsic value, because each human is unique and gets one chance. What each person does from that point, is up to them.

So in your view, whether or not human life is valuable is subject to the view of each person?

Some may agree with you. Some might think humans are of no value whatsoever.

Is this how you see it?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

What makes human life intrinsically valuable, from the humanist POV, that is...

Two things.

One: all of the wonderful things humans can do. Not only for themselves but for the rest of the planet as well.

and,

Two: Human is our species. We should be trying to preserve human life because we can't have as exciting conversations with dogs as we can with other people. That's not to say that animal life is below us or not as meaningful. All life has value to it by simply being. But human life is the only one we can identify with and that should be enough to try to preserve it at all costs.

 

[bhsmte]

So in your view, whether or not human life is valuable is subject to the view of each person?

Some may agree with you. Some might think humans are of no value whatsoever.

Is this how you see it?

I have no control over what others think, nor do you.

I stated my position, quite clearly.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Two things.

One: all of the wonderful things humans can do. Not only for themselves but for the rest of the planet as well.

Humans are intrinsically valuable because they are useful (utility) is what you just said.

Following this logic, the rubberband on my desk is intrinsically valuable, or the poop-scooper I use to pick up dog poop is intrinsically valuable because both are wonderfully useful.

and,

Two: Human is our species. We should be trying to preserve human life because we can't have as exciting conversations with dogs as we can with other people. That's not to say that animal life is below us or not as meaningful. All life has value to it by simply being. But human life is the only one we can identify with and that should be enough to try to preserve it at all costs.

Why "should" someone who disagrees with you, deny their own views to accept yours?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I have no control over what others think, nor do you.

I stated my position, quite clearly.

I know you have no control over what other people think.

I did not ask you if you did.

Nor do I.

Suppose you saw a gentleman one day slapping his child in the face until she cried and when she began crying he roared with laughter and slapped her some more.

Suppose you being the concerned person you are engage him and ask him to stop.

Suppose he looks at you and tells you exactly what you have told me, i.e. that whether or not a human is intrinsically valuable depends on what each individual thinks and feels. Suppose he goes on and says he feels his child is of no more value than a punching bag, good only for slapping around.

Now suppose your view is actually true i.e. that human value is determined by the individual making the judgment.

Guess what?

The abused child is of no more value than a punching bag.

Why? Because a man feels that way.

You feel the exact opposite.

Guess what?

Both of you are right (if your view of how value is determined is actually true).

Neither of you are wrong.

Do you not see why this view is untenable?

 

[bhsmte]

I know you have no control over what other people think.

I did not ask you if you did.

Nor do I.

Suppose you saw a gentleman one day slapping his child in the face until she cried and when she began crying he roared with laughter and slapped her some more.

Suppose you being the concerned person you are engage him and ask him to stop.

Suppose he looks at you and tells you exactly what you have told me, i.e. that whether or not a human is intrinsically valuable depends on what each individual thinks and feels. Suppose he goes on and says he feels his child is of no more value than a punching bag, good only for slapping around.

Now suppose your view is actually true i.e. that human value is determined by the individual making the judgment.

Guess what?

The abused child is of no more value than a punching bag.

Why? Because a man feels that way.

You feel the exact opposite.

Guess what?

Both of you are right (if your view of how value is determined is actually true).

Neither of you are wrong.

Do you not see why this view is untenable?

No I frankly don't and I fail to see your point.

 

[Davian]

Humans are intrinsically valuable because they are useful (utility) is what you just said.

Following this logic, the rubberband on my desk is intrinsically valuable, or the poop-scooper I use to pick up dog poop is intrinsically valuable because both are wonderfully useful.



Why "should" someone who disagrees with you, deny their own views to accept yours?

"No man is an island.".

No one is self-sufficient; everyone relies on others. This saying comes from a sermon by the seventeenth-century English author John Donne.

source

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Without going to God, you can't.
Hitler was wrong because he is defeated. Otherwise, he would be right.

Hmmmm, that sounds exactly like someone who takes their orders from an imaginary dictator in the sky.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No. The master may not. He MUST have a good reason to do that. This should not happen in normal case. The Bible verses describe an extreme behavior.

So, you are basically saying that some people deserve to be beaten to within an inch of their lives, and that slavery depends on this practice enough to codify it. Well, I've got news for you.

I am Spartacus!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[theophilus777]

You have no idea what Christianity teaches on the subject. None.

I've read the bible. The whole thing. Something tells me you haven't:

(Exodus 21:20-21 ESV) When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Case in point.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why do you present a difference of opinion as though it's a formidable challenge to objective ethics? If a person were to say, "Sorry chum, I don't accept your definition of physics. To me it's not about our understanding of matter and energy in the universe; it's about me trying to map my interpretation of Genesis onto the natural world." Does that now make physics relative? Does any mere assertion of disagreement make reality relative and subjective?

Atheists are always complaining because there is no empirical evidence that God exists, so where is your empirical evidence that genocide is immoral?

 

[quatona]

Atheists are always complaining because there is no empirical evidence that God exists, so where is your empirical evidence that genocide is immoral?

I´m not sure that "empirical evidence" even makes sense when applied to a value judgement. I don´t understand the question.
When it comes to "ultimately" justifying my value judgements I will readily admit that I am just as empty-handed as you or the next guy.

That´s why I think this approach is as futile as discussing if garlic tastes good or not.

We have this guy here on the board who defends genocide and slavery by reference to an alleged divine law giver. You two guys have at least common ground for a meaningful discussion.

 

[Blessedj01]

Saying that Hitler was only wrong because he "lost" is so cynical. Sorry.

That implies that you basically don't understand right and wrong, which I doubt.

If you go out and punch someone in the face and take their wallet, it doesn't make it right just because you "won."

 

[juvenissun]

So, you are basically saying that some people deserve to be beaten to within an inch of their lives, and that slavery depends on this practice enough to codify it. Well, I've got news for you.

I am Spartacus!


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are certainly qualified to be a politician. I think you might be a very experienced one.

 

[juvenissun]

Just to avoid double standards:
Since answering the "why" question, in your ideology, needs nothing more than an appeal to your authority of choice ("because the bible says so"), the same should be granted to any other ideology ("because the humanist manifest says so").
However, if you are asking for actual reasons, your own approach is the first one to fail.

If I said the Bible says so, I can give you the exact sentence in the Bible for that.

Where is the book of humanism? You may give me 10 books for it. And I can add one more to it which is written by ME.

According to ME, I can certainly justify what Hitler did and also justify murder, easily. That is humanism. Who are you to say I am wrong?

 

[juvenissun]

Well the humanist POV posits that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved. That's why it's called human-ism. Also the concepts of personal freedom and liberty are at play when we talk about murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a life and it is presumed that the person who was murdered did not want to die and so, you don't have the right to take that person's life.

So you see, it's actually very simple to explain how a humanist would oppose murder. Not that there aren't any who can justify killing another person. Just that it doesn't logically follow that a humanist would use specifically humanist philosophy to justify killing.

Certainly agree.

But if one killed my daughter, I would certainly want to murder him. It is perfectly justified. He violated humanism first. Don't blame me to do the same. Why is "his" life more precious then my daughter's life?

Lawful? Funny word. Who makes the law? I want a revolution. I am the law.

Because of the humanism, so there is war in the world.