The Value of Human Life 25 replies

Please wait...

masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

What's one human life worth?

What's one million human lives worth?

What's ten million human lives worth?

Is an abortion wrong because it kills a single innocent life at a time, while nuking the Middle East is alright, even though it slaughters millions of innocent lives?




fahrenheitunreachable33

The Original Idiot...

50 XP

21st October 2006

0 Uploads

287 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

That's true actually. You see, it's like a playground. Usually it's a lot of "He/She started it first", so they get revenge on each other.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago
masked_marsoe;3316869What's one human life worth? What's one million human lives worth? What's ten million human lives worth?

There is no "tangible" value of human life. Very complex subject.

Is an abortion wrong because it kills a single innocent life at a time, while nuking the Middle East is alright, even though it slaughters millions of innocent lives?

Its about rationalization and justice. If you don't kill your enemy first, he will kill you. That's why pacifism is so silly. One isn't stopping violence, one is simply changing who the victims will be. While killing a child in your own tribe who hasn't done anything to you would be wrong. Notice I said in your own tribe. Of course you would shoot a child from another tribe - he might be flinging acid in your face, or helping the enemy. Just like any other human function, there are multiple levels to violence. That's the main reason I oppose abortion, mercy killing, ect. It is tinkering with feelings and concepts that we have very little understanding or control over.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,008 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#4 12 years ago

I'm not sure what the value of a human life is, but if there were more respect for life in general we'd surely live in a better world.

Its about rationalization and justice. If you don't kill your enemy first, he will kill you. That's why pacifism is so silly. One isn't stopping violence, one is simply changing who the victims will be.

Pacifism isn't more or less silly than any other idealism. It only exchanges who the victims will be if you stay in a narrow predefined generalized scenario which is about as realistic as the hope that we will reach the goal of pacifism in the next 10 years.

While killing a child in your own tribe who hasn't done anything to you would be wrong. Notice I said in your own tribe. Of course you would shoot a child from another tribe - he might be flinging acid in your face, or helping the enemy. Just like any other human function, there are multiple levels to violence. That's the main reason I oppose abortion, mercy killing, ect. It is tinkering with feelings and concepts that we have very little understanding or control over.

So killing people from other tribes is ok, but killing people from your own is not? Sounds like national socialism to me.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago
MrFancypants;3317036 Pacifism isn't more or less silly than any other idealism. It only exchanges who the victims will be if you stay in a narrow predefined generalized scenario which is about as realistic as the hope that we will reach the goal of pacifism in the next 10 years.

Not really. Not taking violent action in general DOES determine who the victims will be. For example, if you don't lift a finger to defend the weak people living next to you, THEY will be the victims of violence.

In fact, that's how the Korean War started. It wasn't listed among the countries that we would defend... and what do you know? The Commies invaded that one next! Strange coincidence, isn't it? ;)

So killing people from other tribes is ok, but killing people from your own is not?

Exactly. Teaching the kids its "always wrong to kill" is hypocrisy.

Sounds like national socialism to me.

So almost every society that ever existed was "national socialist"? Something tells me your definition of national socialism is a bit too broad.;)




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,008 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#6 12 years ago

Machiavelli's Apprentice;3317057Not really. Not taking violent action in general DOES determine who the victims will be. For example, if you don't lift a finger to defend the weak people living next to you, THEY will be the victims of violence.

In fact, that's how the Korean War started. It wasn't listed among the countries that we would defend... and what do you know? The Commies invaded that one next! Strange coincidence, isn't it? ;)

Yes, it's really shame that people didn't take violent action more often, during the Cuba-crisis for example, then we wouldn't have to argue about such things all the time ;)

Exactly. Teaching the kids its "always wrong to kill" is hypocrisy.

Depends on how much value you attach to life and/or how natioanlistic you are.

So almost every society that ever existed was "national socialist"? Something tells me your definition of national socialism is a bit too broad.;)

A mixture of nationalism and social darwinism might have existed in other societies, but the nationalsocialists were the ones who followed those theories through to their logical end, which is why I like to use them as example. A theoretical "it's ok to kill people from other tribes" just doesn't sound as catchy as "it's ok to gas 6 million jews", even though it relies on the same principle. Just a way to get rid of euphemisms.




Reno

The professional.

50 XP

22nd March 2006

0 Uploads

1,312 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

A human life isn't worth much. With close to 7 billion people on the face of the planet you can kill off millions and nobody would give a shit.

Example: Darfur, Africa

They use this in economics alot. If you buy one of something its marked up by 200% or so. If you buy 200 of something you get a markdown by a percentage. Sounds cold, but its the truth. Your life isn't worth much, because there's always hundreds of people willing and able to take your spot in society.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago
MrFancypants;3317103Yes, it's really shame that people didn't take violent action more often, during the Cuba-crisis for example, then we wouldn't have to argue about such things all the time ;)

How about WWII, Korea, Vietnam... All of these wars were caused or prolonged by refusal to accept war. Even Stalin made that mistake.

Depends on how much value you attach to life and/or how natioanlistic you are.

Not really. Otherwise anybody who supports UN peacemaking missions, no matter how noble sounding, would be a hypocrite.

A mixture of nationalism and social darwinism might have existed in other societies, but the nationalsocialists were the ones who followed those theories through to their logical end, which is why I like to use them as example. A theoretical "it's ok to kill people from other tribes" just doesn't sound as catchy as "it's ok to gas 6 million jews", even though it relies on the same principle. Just a way to get rid of euphemisms.

Alright then - explain how the Jews were a threat to the German regime. How was the Jewish war of conquest going?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 12 years ago

Very simple. It is ok to kill someone to defend yourself or someone else. In any other scenrio it is wrong. And no, I don't agree with glassing the mideast because that would kill too many innocents along with the real threats. But if someone is pointing a gun at you, feel free to kill him. If someone is pointing a gun at someone else, feel free to kill them. And even then I consider it the lesser of two evils. It is wrong to kill in all scenarios, it is simply worse to let an innocent die then it is to kill an agressor. But if you could make me a gun that would always disarm, and never kill anyonbe, I would be all over that.

This is why I think it is ok to get an abortion if your life is in danger, because then you are effectively defending yourself from bodily harm. But in all other cases where your life is not threatend then I think adoption is the better choice.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#10 12 years ago

The value of any life, human or not, is subjective to those who have the power to save or kill. If life were universally valued, the world wouldn’t be as it is. If life was worthless, again the world would not be as it is. Remember that congressmen in South Dakota who accidentally killed a motorcyclist in a carwreck and got around 60 - 100 days in jail for involuntary manslaughter, many of them suspended. Surely had that been anyone else, they would have got a lot more then a slap on the wrist for taking a human life, accident or not.

Not only is the value of life subjective to the one who decides who lives or dies, but it’s also subjective to the one who lives or dies. An example would be if a bum died, that would not be as important as a college student who died. An 'important or infamous’ person who kills, will more then likely get far less then someone who isn't as important as infamous. The victims themselves are as equally important as those who perpetrated the killing. A man who shoots the guy who molested his daughter isn’t as bad as the man who shoots his neighbor because he wouldn’t return a borrowed yard tool.

It is ALL subjective to interpretation, and sadly those who do the interpreting are heavily biased one way or another. There is no universial justice, only universial vengeance, and the two are very seperate things.

A defense or prosecuting attorneys dream case, is not a dead or disabled baby, or child, or even an elderly person. No, what they salivate over are people in their prime, early 20’s to late 30’s. People who were capable of contributing the most to the world. That’s a proven fact, and that alone should tell you whats valuable and whats not.