Tazx
Member
- Location
- Europe via Canada.
So, as I am a lifetime student of Philosophy, I decided to look at the value of human life. And with it, our value to humanity in general.
The “sanctity of life” is the idea that human lives are inherently valuable, more valuable than any other material thing there is. The fact that we value human life so highly, owes itself mostly to various religious traditions. Without religion, can it be justified? Would we have valued human life so greatly if never ingrained with the 'beliefs' of various religions that we are the highest value 'things' on earth? Do animals have this ingrained supremacy built in as well? Why are we so valuable and other creatures not?
Nearly all of us seem to have an unquestioned belief or assumption that every person should continue to live; that to kill another human being is a wrong beyond no others. We unthinkingly accept that there’s something about human beings that we have to protect and, if at all possible, avoid harming. We value human life in a way that suggests we have a special or sacred 'something' that other creatures like fish, birds, insects and other mammals do not have.
Why, do we continue to value human life, especially above and beyond animals? If you value rationality, why is that? And does rationality, alone, place value on a human life?
Another idea is-is our value today, the same as it was 100 years ago, or a thousand years ago? Were we more valuable then, now or will we be in the future? Many Philosophers of today think that the value of human life as an instrument of value (decided by its value of its existence and what it does or provides to the world) has fallen. Many believe that the value of a human 100 years ago was exponentially greater than today. And that of one 500 years ago greater than that of 100 years ago and that of today. Why? Are they correct?
Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of value. One is instrumental value, which is value for what something does or, provides. The other is an inherent/intrinsic value, which is valuable because it just is.
If we take the first: that we value humans for their instrumental value. We might suggest that a human life can be measured by the good it does or provides to the world.
So, in essence, if a human life provides a positive outcome in this world, in whatever manner, and does not truly 'take' from humanity, instrumentally it is a good person. If, by the opposite logic, a person continues to take or create negativity in this world are they not a bad person.
If we agree that it is such, is it not perfectly okay to harvest organs from a vagrant and friendless 'scoundrel' (negative value person) in order to keep dozens of (positive value people) alive? Logically, under the instrumental value thought, this would be the case. Are we happy to say that some humans are more or less valuable, depending on their daily productivity or “goodness output”? Some would be fine with this, but I think many are not. But again, why not?
Is it the other value that affects our logic?
The other alternative is that we value life because we’ve always valued life. There’s a collective unconscious (to quote Carl Jung) that assents and reaffirms the sanctity of life. By the stories we tell, good parenting, and moral education, we teach each generation that human life is valuable beyond all else.
But a philosopher’s job is not to accept the assumed inheritance of knowledge or intelligence from our ancestors as is. It is to ask questions where they’re not usually asked -to peek behind the curtain and lift up the stone and see what is underneath. As philosophers, what reasons can we give for calling human life valuable-because it just is?
The first point...Think of it as 'times' in a humans life. At birth you are essentially useless to the world. From the age of 0 to about 7 or 8 you have some minor value. Yes during those years you learn basic social skills, basic life skills, like how to clean up your toys, maybe help your younger sister learn to count. But essentially to society you are valueless. You take more than you provide. Once approx 13-15 or so, you might go out into the world and work. You are finishing your basic scholastic education and most work part time jobs. The value of this person is starting to grow.
Then after 18, you are an adult. Your value jumps immensely. You either carry on to further education and on paper become more valuable, or find employment which fills a possible hole in humanity that needed to be filled. Therefore increasing your value again. As you continue through time you have achieved knowledge and experience that further increases your value.
We as humans proceed through time absorbing more wisdom, intellect and experience as we age. But as with all living things they eventually reach the end/elderly years where they are seen as less valued in humanity despite what they have acquired...many are experts in their positions, walking libraries of life and working experiences, but still, once retired providing no positive value to society in general, humanity sees the retired as a negative value. The retired take in the form of 'money for nothing' (even though they have contributed their whole life), and give nothing back in terms of positive value that would supersede the negative value.
This is the idea behind instrumental value...
Now on to inherent/intrinsic value.
Life in itself has no specific value to us as humans, other than as the way we have experiences, and that through these experiences are what we find to be valuable. Humans do not put the value of life in the simple physical state of merely being alive, but give it value through its ability to 'allow' for experiences. Life, as a set of experiences that are good, or bad, and and our capacity to have them is the intrinsic value of life.
Human values of life come from the environment. The biggest influences in humans lives come from our contacts in our daily life and the culture and society humans live within. We as humans also have a certain sense of human community, and with few exceptions, put human life above and separate from all other life. This separation gives our common definition of life an intrinsic value, but it is only from being able to 'feel alive and enjoy experiences' that we have come to give human life any additional value. If having what is deemed positive experiences gives us enjoyment and makes us feel alive, what would negative experiences do?
If we only ever experienced a somber, average, un-alive or negative experiences, would we place the value of human lives so highly? The value of life, therefore, is one that is not derived from our ability to exist physically, but to exist in the human experience and be a part of experiences that are themselves considered desirable or good.
Life gains its intrinsic value from the ability to experience, and this value is not reducible to the physical or the mental, but the physical contains the potential for enhancing these experiences. The quality of life as used to describe a person's physical status is an attempt to place value on a person's physical being. But it leaves out the mental well being. Both are intrinsically connected. If ones physical life is negative, then ones mental ability to experience positive experiences is diminished. If ones mental well being is diminished, it has a detrimental effect on the physical experiences.
When value is attempted to be placed on something other than these two experiences and what we find valuable, it is not likely productive. The intrinsic value of a life is then exclusively linked to experiences.
This could go on into a book, as within this there are plenty of avenues to divert the process into other lines of thinking and at this point...my brain is starting to hurt!!
The “sanctity of life” is the idea that human lives are inherently valuable, more valuable than any other material thing there is. The fact that we value human life so highly, owes itself mostly to various religious traditions. Without religion, can it be justified? Would we have valued human life so greatly if never ingrained with the 'beliefs' of various religions that we are the highest value 'things' on earth? Do animals have this ingrained supremacy built in as well? Why are we so valuable and other creatures not?
Nearly all of us seem to have an unquestioned belief or assumption that every person should continue to live; that to kill another human being is a wrong beyond no others. We unthinkingly accept that there’s something about human beings that we have to protect and, if at all possible, avoid harming. We value human life in a way that suggests we have a special or sacred 'something' that other creatures like fish, birds, insects and other mammals do not have.
Why, do we continue to value human life, especially above and beyond animals? If you value rationality, why is that? And does rationality, alone, place value on a human life?
Another idea is-is our value today, the same as it was 100 years ago, or a thousand years ago? Were we more valuable then, now or will we be in the future? Many Philosophers of today think that the value of human life as an instrument of value (decided by its value of its existence and what it does or provides to the world) has fallen. Many believe that the value of a human 100 years ago was exponentially greater than today. And that of one 500 years ago greater than that of 100 years ago and that of today. Why? Are they correct?
Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of value. One is instrumental value, which is value for what something does or, provides. The other is an inherent/intrinsic value, which is valuable because it just is.
If we take the first: that we value humans for their instrumental value. We might suggest that a human life can be measured by the good it does or provides to the world.
So, in essence, if a human life provides a positive outcome in this world, in whatever manner, and does not truly 'take' from humanity, instrumentally it is a good person. If, by the opposite logic, a person continues to take or create negativity in this world are they not a bad person.
If we agree that it is such, is it not perfectly okay to harvest organs from a vagrant and friendless 'scoundrel' (negative value person) in order to keep dozens of (positive value people) alive? Logically, under the instrumental value thought, this would be the case. Are we happy to say that some humans are more or less valuable, depending on their daily productivity or “goodness output”? Some would be fine with this, but I think many are not. But again, why not?
Is it the other value that affects our logic?
The other alternative is that we value life because we’ve always valued life. There’s a collective unconscious (to quote Carl Jung) that assents and reaffirms the sanctity of life. By the stories we tell, good parenting, and moral education, we teach each generation that human life is valuable beyond all else.
But a philosopher’s job is not to accept the assumed inheritance of knowledge or intelligence from our ancestors as is. It is to ask questions where they’re not usually asked -to peek behind the curtain and lift up the stone and see what is underneath. As philosophers, what reasons can we give for calling human life valuable-because it just is?
The first point...Think of it as 'times' in a humans life. At birth you are essentially useless to the world. From the age of 0 to about 7 or 8 you have some minor value. Yes during those years you learn basic social skills, basic life skills, like how to clean up your toys, maybe help your younger sister learn to count. But essentially to society you are valueless. You take more than you provide. Once approx 13-15 or so, you might go out into the world and work. You are finishing your basic scholastic education and most work part time jobs. The value of this person is starting to grow.
Then after 18, you are an adult. Your value jumps immensely. You either carry on to further education and on paper become more valuable, or find employment which fills a possible hole in humanity that needed to be filled. Therefore increasing your value again. As you continue through time you have achieved knowledge and experience that further increases your value.
We as humans proceed through time absorbing more wisdom, intellect and experience as we age. But as with all living things they eventually reach the end/elderly years where they are seen as less valued in humanity despite what they have acquired...many are experts in their positions, walking libraries of life and working experiences, but still, once retired providing no positive value to society in general, humanity sees the retired as a negative value. The retired take in the form of 'money for nothing' (even though they have contributed their whole life), and give nothing back in terms of positive value that would supersede the negative value.
This is the idea behind instrumental value...
Now on to inherent/intrinsic value.
Life in itself has no specific value to us as humans, other than as the way we have experiences, and that through these experiences are what we find to be valuable. Humans do not put the value of life in the simple physical state of merely being alive, but give it value through its ability to 'allow' for experiences. Life, as a set of experiences that are good, or bad, and and our capacity to have them is the intrinsic value of life.
Human values of life come from the environment. The biggest influences in humans lives come from our contacts in our daily life and the culture and society humans live within. We as humans also have a certain sense of human community, and with few exceptions, put human life above and separate from all other life. This separation gives our common definition of life an intrinsic value, but it is only from being able to 'feel alive and enjoy experiences' that we have come to give human life any additional value. If having what is deemed positive experiences gives us enjoyment and makes us feel alive, what would negative experiences do?
If we only ever experienced a somber, average, un-alive or negative experiences, would we place the value of human lives so highly? The value of life, therefore, is one that is not derived from our ability to exist physically, but to exist in the human experience and be a part of experiences that are themselves considered desirable or good.
Life gains its intrinsic value from the ability to experience, and this value is not reducible to the physical or the mental, but the physical contains the potential for enhancing these experiences. The quality of life as used to describe a person's physical status is an attempt to place value on a person's physical being. But it leaves out the mental well being. Both are intrinsically connected. If ones physical life is negative, then ones mental ability to experience positive experiences is diminished. If ones mental well being is diminished, it has a detrimental effect on the physical experiences.
When value is attempted to be placed on something other than these two experiences and what we find valuable, it is not likely productive. The intrinsic value of a life is then exclusively linked to experiences.
This could go on into a book, as within this there are plenty of avenues to divert the process into other lines of thinking and at this point...my brain is starting to hurt!!
