Whose Life has Value?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

davidm
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by davidm » Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:10 pm

I read the bits you just quoted. Only the problem remains: This idea of establishing a link with this other reality, which she says lies outside time and space and outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties. How does one do that? If you can establish such a link, then by definition this realm cannot be "outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Perhaps she means something in the way of metaxy, that every separation is also a link?

Nick_A
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:31 pm

davidm wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:10 pm
I read the bits you just quoted. Only the problem remains: This idea of establishing a link with this other reality, which she says lies outside time and space and outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties. How does one do that? If you can establish such a link, then by definition this realm cannot be "outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Perhaps she means something in the way of metaxy, that every separation is also a link?
Again, the link is established through the practice of conscious attention. When you experience that as a whole we are incapable of it and only exists as a human potential, you'll see why Simone claimed it is so rare.

davidm
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by davidm » Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:42 pm

Well, then, again, this claim -- while it may be true -- flatly contradicts what she said in her opening paragraph. By definition one cannot have a link to something "outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties."

Nick_A
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:45 am

davidm wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:42 pm
Well, then, again, this claim -- while it may be true -- flatly contradicts what she said in her opening paragraph. By definition one cannot have a link to something "outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties."
Our human faculties are our senses. They can be aware of the contents of consciousness but not the source of consciousness. For that we need a conscious connection not dependent on and outside the limitations of our senses.

Walker
Posts: 3784
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by Walker » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:08 pm

davidm wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:42 pm
Well, then, again, this claim -- while it may be true -- flatly contradicts what she said in her opening paragraph. By definition one cannot have a link to something "outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties."
- A person has a defacto link to life by being alive, however the creation of life is outside the sphere of human faculties.
- Like wine and music, a solitary person is an element comprising the conditions that invite the appearance of life.
- A person does not create the spark that marks the appearance.
- Confusion arises when a solitary person claims to have a link to the actual creation of life.
- That’s like saying driving a car is a link to the making of a car.
- Folks assume that having been created is a link to the realm of creation.
- However, even though making a car is a rearranging of existing elements, humankind has only discovered the physical laws of wheels and not created them by riding on the implications of rearranging what has already been created.

However, folks are a link like a wire links a generator to a light bulb, knowingly or not linking the unknown divine realm to a shared, dualistic realm.

prof
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by prof » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:10 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:16 pm
Whose life has sufficient or insufficient value for you so that they should be either murdered or protected from murder?
Greetings

I thought his matter was resolved by the Ethical Theory known as the Hartman/katz breakthrough. Isn't the theory by Dr. M. C. Katz (based upon the Formal Axiology of Robert S. Hartman (1910-1973) adequate to answer your query?
{See ttps://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFULLY-scie ... B01NBKS42C
Also, see my earlier threads and posts here at The Ethical Theory Forum.}

For it derives the principle Do no harm from the very definitions of Ethics', and of 'harm.' The two concepts - being ethical - and harming (which includes murdering) - are incongruent with each other.

If you are ethical you will not want to hurt anyone. Every conscious human being has uncountably-high value; and it is self-defeating and counter-productive to destroy value. Instead, we are to add value, and to create value, in our interactions with sentient beings and with nature.

The only reasonable response to Nick's question is: Everyone born as a normal child should be protected from murder for the rest of that individual's life.

Questions? Comments?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2640
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: too close

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:43 pm

"I thought (t)his matter was resolved by the Ethical Theory known as the Hartman/katz breakthrough."

Obviously not, Dr. Katz.

#

"Isn't the theory by Dr. M. C. Katz (based upon the Formal Axiology of Robert S. Hartman (1910-1973) adequate to answer your query?"

Obviously not, Dr. Katz.

#

"If you are ethical you will not want to hurt anyone."

Sometimes, though, you just gotta, in self-defense or in defense of another.

#

"Every conscious human being has uncountably-high value"

And when one highly valuable human threatens another without provocation that offending human shouldn't be surprised when the other defends his or her own highly valuable keister.

#

Not that you give a flip, but here are the three pillars of my own ethics...

1 Mind your own god-damned business.

2 Keep your friggin' hands to yourself.

3 ...or else.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2484
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by Greta » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:49 pm

I think George Carlin says it best (language warning):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYWVBs7lfnk

Nick_A
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:00 am

prof wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:10 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:16 pm
Whose life has sufficient or insufficient value for you so that they should be either murdered or protected from murder?
Greetings

I thought his matter was resolved by the Ethical Theory known as the Hartman/katz breakthrough. Isn't the theory by Dr. M. C. Katz (based upon the Formal Axiology of Robert S. Hartman (1910-1973) adequate to answer your query?
{See ttps://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFULLY-scie ... B01NBKS42C
Also, see my earlier threads and posts here at The Ethical Theory Forum.}

For it derives the principle Do no harm from the very definitions of Ethics', and of 'harm.' The two concepts - being ethical - and harming (which includes murdering) - are incongruent with each other.

If you are ethical you will not want to hurt anyone. Every conscious human being has uncountably-high value; and it is self-defeating and counter-productive to destroy value. Instead, we are to add value, and to create value, in our interactions with sentient beings and with nature.

The only reasonable response to Nick's question is: Everyone born as a normal child should be protected from murder for the rest of that individual's life.

Questions? Comments?
Hi Prof

You are suggesting that a person gives another value through ethics. But does a person have objective value or is value only defined by the state?

We have three acceptable reasons for murder. The first is an unwanted fetus,, the second is in self defense, and the third is during war.

In the case of the fetus, the mother decides if it has value. If she does she puts thumbs up and calls it a baby. If someone intentionally kills this fetus it would be called murder. If she decides it is worthless she puts thumbs down and has it aborted.

In the case of a personal attack a person had value the day before but now has lost their value because of their attack on another. The person’s value is determined by the laws of the state.

In the case of war, those on the opposing side have clearly lost their value and should be killed. But those on the other side think the same so which side has value?

Does human life have objective value not determined by the state? Since it doesn’t “respect for life” as a whole appears to be a concept we don’t understand so cannot further it.

prof
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by prof » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:48 am

War is: organized mass-murder in the name of some fine, noble cause - and is totally unethical.


When I was called to participate in a war I was a Conscientious Objector to it, and did time in jail instead of letting myself be inducted. [I mention this personal note merely to indicate that I live my beliefs as best I can. I am neither bragging nor complaining, but merely striving to avoid hypocrisy. I don't always succeed in the latter endeavor. I am acutely aware that we are all very fallible creatures.
:wink: I make about forty mistakes a day - to keep up with my quota. :wink: ]

Of course, in situations where self-defense (in the face of a violent threat from someone who has invaded your home or apartment) becomes an issue, this is an emergency situation - and ethics is then suspended.

The best self-defense is to leave the scene, or run in the other direction, rather than to have an encounter with the threat-of-possible-violence perpetrator. I learned this from an expert in these matters, one who is a master in the Brazilian-style of wrestling as well as a Black Belt in martial arts! He really knows his Ethics too.

Nick_A
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:09 pm

prof wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:48 am
War is: organized mass-murder in the name of some fine, noble cause - and is totally unethical.


When I was called to participate in a war I was a Conscientious Objector to it, and did time in jail instead of letting myself be inducted. [I mention this personal note merely to indicate that I live my beliefs as best I can. I am neither bragging nor complaining, but merely striving to avoid hypocrisy. I don't always succeed in the latter endeavor. I am acutely aware that we are all very fallible creatures.
:wink: I make about forty mistakes a day - to keep up with my quota. :wink: ]

Of course, in situations where self-defense (in the face of a violent threat from someone who has invaded your home or apartment) becomes an issue, this is an emergency situation - and ethics is then suspended.

The best self-defense is to leave the scene, or run in the other direction, rather than to have an encounter with the threat-of-possible-violence perpetrator. I learned this from an expert in these matters, one who is a master in the Brazilian-style of wrestling as well as a Black Belt in martial arts! He really knows his Ethics too.
But do you believe there is an objective standard for human value and our actions reflect it? Does running from trouble show a respect for life? If a man is raping a woman does it really show respect for like by calling 911 as opposed to dragging the guy off of the woman?

Einstein provides an excellent example of objective human value but how do we measure it?
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 9999
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:23 pm

Nick_A wrote:But do you believe there is an objective standard for human value and our actions reflect it? ...
Yes, it's called being this social primate.
Does running from trouble show a respect for life? ...
Yes if it's your life you are running to save.
If a man is raping a woman does it really show respect for like by calling 911 as opposed to dragging the guy off of the woman?
You live in a world of fantasy if you think you are going to catch a solo rapist in the act. Much more likely is you'll be with or near a group that does this, will you intervene?
Einstein provides an excellent example of objective human value but how do we measure it?
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein
Personally I think he's wrong, the true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and sense with which he or she will act for one's fellows in need. But then I'm an old hippie not a physicist.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2640
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: too close

ain't nuthin' 'scientific' or ethical about it

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:44 pm

"Whose Life has Value?"

Mine, to me.

Some of *you, for reasons idiosyncratic to each.

My 11 year old, for reasons so obvious only an autistic fuck would wonder about them.

The rest of the seven billion: nope, not to me.









* as in 'people', not just folks here in-forum

prof
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by prof » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:33 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:09 pm
prof wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:48 am
War is: organized mass-murder in the name of some fine, noble cause - and is totally unethical.
...When I was called to participate in a war I was a Conscientious Objector ...
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein
I believe this was poorly translated, and that what Einstein meant was liberation from the ego. He was advocating humility, and seeing ourselves in perspective.
.


- "If you give up the need for security, you will be secure."

.

Let us avoid paranoia, self-centeredness, over-valuation of self, and mixed-up priorities: i.e., placing things, or numbers or dogma over people. Each individual is a bundle of uncountable value, worthy of positive regard. To violate these priorities is to fail to have a life of maximum quality. :!: :!: 8)

Dubious
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Whose Life has Value?

Post by Dubious » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:36 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:09 pm

Einstein provides an excellent example of objective human value but how do we measure it?
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein
Albert's own affiliations with hypocrisy are also a matter of record and haven't gone unnoticed. But it was Albert so all the brain dead dolts believe there must be something special in whatever he said. Had it been someone else it would have gone by unheeded amounting to nothing more than another cliche by someone who, in order to enhance reputation, wanted to purchase some wisdom on the cheap or by emulating another; in this case Gandhi who was no saint himself...contrary to reputation!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest