Valuing Life: Taking an Unbiased Look

[munky99999]

Im not speaking of your own. But of others. Others which arent able to value their own.

Take animals for example. It could be said that they don't have value for their life. As they completely run on instincts.

So ok they don't value their life. So we dont. and we basically mass produce and kill animals for food.

(Ok I am not PETA or whatever. I eat meat.)

But take mentally deficient people. Now I am not talking about like IQ of 70 people. But I am speaking of the people where instincts arent even present. That they live in the wheelchair and are basically kept alive by the people who care for them. These people can't feed themselves. They can't do anything basic. That even my dog Buster out performs these people.

Ok I am not saying that we should kill these people. or just let them die.

But why do be value their life by keeping them alive?

 

[jimmie]

But why do be value their life by keeping them alive?

Perhaps, such right actions yield grace unto the caregiver, reinforces the foundation of a right society, and guarantees the ill time until they are miraculously cured of all ailments at one point.

 

[CosminaPrisma]

Are you talking about a case like that of Terry Shiavo, where she arguably didn't have any mental capacity at all?? Or are you talking about where people have fully functioning minds but can't control their bodies?? Could you please be more specific?

 

[munky99999]

not really specifically. I didnt think it would really matter. but for arguements sake.

Im talking completely like Terry Schiavo i suppose. But would rather have a generic subject. We could also discuss people who arent intelligent enough to do anything at all for themselves.

What I am not talking about is anyone who is physically handicapped but is there mentally.

So basically. Physically your fine, or relatively fine. MEntally the person isnt.

Perhaps, such right actions yield grace unto the caregiver, reinforces the foundation of a right society, and guarantees the ill time until they are miraculously cured of all ailments at one point.

Ok that's the thing. Here in Canada anyone who cares for these people get money from the government and get tax benifits. I know 3 families that are like this. one family near my uncle had 3 people like this. they gave the basic care and had enough money from a part-time job and from the government from these people to live very nicely. The same thing went for the other 2 families that I've observed. They did the basics and left them be. They didnt much care for these kids. Though anytime they spoke or saw anyone they acted like they cared very very much for these kids. Like the one person, I was on the porch doing some physics homework and it was real nice out, and the person comes outside, like is put outside by the parents, and eventually sort of rolls all the way to the edge of the road, between the edge and the sidewalk. He stayed there for the rest of my homework. which was pretty long. The parents never came to check up or anything.

So I highly doubt the "caregivers" actually get anything out of it. Other then a paycheck. and a brand new Leased vehicles every couple of years.

 

[jimmie]

So I highly doubt the "caregivers" actually get anything out of it.

There were only two types of "caregivers". One type, the true right type, intends to and does provide care despite anything.

The other type of "caregiver" may or may not have intended to provide care and did not provide care.

Let it be known: "care" includes the caregivee knowing the definition of one type of "caregiver", and is being provided with care by one type of "caregiver".

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I think you're getting off topic here. Let's go back to your question -Why value life? Next, why value a mentally handicapped life? And then, why value life where there is no mind, ie way to experience it? For the second, there are plenty of philosophical beliefs that think a life of sensual experience and pleasure is worth living. I'd also disagree that these people are not mentally "there." I'm not speaking of people who are basically in vegetative states, I mean people you'd call mentally handicapped. Obviously, that's a cultural term, we view them as incomplete or missing out on things we view as essential. However, they do still have a brain that works, they still experience a world (if not the same world the majority of people do). From my viewpoint, living a life is worth it if you can actually experience it and if it isn't an unbearable, misery-filled life.

Were you talking about these people too, or only people who are brain dead?

Secondly, you're also asking why we should value those aforementioned peoples' lives, those who aren't able to "value" their own life. That's a pretty bold statement for something so complex and even unknowable. You're making a lot of assumptions that I don't think you can make. You've framed the question mistakenly, I think.

 

[munky99999]

well i never really got off topic. the title is just short. and then the second part was what i was talking about. the next parts were just further detail.

Something i was trying to specify was. Animals are instinctual.

Think of it like an IQ line or something.

(Area I am talking about, where even instincts arent there.)->Instinctual IQ range, animals and stuff.-->Lower IQ people, or monkies with sign language :)-->and up.


As for live for the experience philosophy. Alot of freethinkers are this way. Me included. But if your totally not there mentally. You don't experience. You don't even instinctually experience.

we view them as incomplete or missing out on things we view as essential. However, they do still have a brain that works, they still experience a world (if not the same world the majority of people do).

But I am not speaking about anything that has enough IQ to be even instinctual. I mean less.

 

[CosminaPrisma]

If you're talking about mental vegtables who are brain dead or close they are kept alive a lot of times just to ease the family's pain as they hang on to the hope that their loved one may get better. Their life is valued because they were cared about and loved when they were functional, and they are still loved and cared for when they are not functional. The grieving process and trauma for the family in a case like this must also be taken into account as they move forward past the denial stage to accept the eventual death of their loved one which can be a long and hard ordeal.

 

[munky99999]

id perfer not to get into the Terry Schiavo thing. I understand that's stuff.

what I am wondering is the "born that way" people.

 

[CosminaPrisma]

A lot of times people "born that way", don't survive, or else their inherited a condition that makes them that way over time...such as in some genetic disorders...
In a sense, life is valued because the individual "born that way" is a person and not a thing to the family taking care of him or her if they are what jimmie calls the true type of caregiver.
In the other instance, where the family is just collecting some sort of insurance money or perks because of the disabled individual, as you pointed out...life is obviously not valued...
where are you trying to take this?

 

[Lewis]

I think it the responsibility of those with the capability of compassion to value the lives of those who cannot themselves.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

There are some cultures that kill babies (or don't care for them) if they're deformed or sick. They make a cost benefit analysis of whether or not they can care for the child. Others kill baby girls because boys are more valuable, eg some inuits I think. However, lots of cultures care for those we view as sick, eg many cultures see epilepsy as a gift of spirits, epileptics get to be shamans. In our culture, we have the choice of whether or not we care for individuals that are completely dependent. But, our instincts conflict with our cultural values - humans (and other primates) are distinct from other animals for their "desire"/instinct to care for others. However, our culture tells us that people who cannot contribute materially are worthless. Add to this the ideas we hold about life, eg a life without purpose/accomplishments isn't a life worth living. With these views in mind, then their lives aren't worth living and aren't of value (to us at least).

Again, we have the ability to, so why wouldn't we? I don't think it's out of guilt, or a dislike of murder (active or passive). I think most of us do in fact find value in the life of these people (what term are we using for them?). I guess it's a combination of objective assessment (yes, they have a life, albeit not the one we experience) and metaphysical belief (we don't know the exact nature of reality, so we hold that there is a possibility of something great, or even just ok in these lives).

Sorry for the writing style, not in an editing mood.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm still unclear on the type of people you are talking about. If you have a certain IQ level or minimum cognitive functions in mind, what are these? Are these people that cannot feed themselves? People that cannot move with any purpose? People that cannot achieve any level of communication with the outside world? Are they still capable of any sensory perception?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Why value life? You might as well ask why value yourself? If you ask yourself what you are good for, you will answer a number of things, but these do not exhaust your value. Beyond your usefulness to others, you will feel that you have a worth that is not measured in your mere usefulness. Therefore, in order to be logically consistent, if you value your own life, then you should value other life, regardless of its usefulness to you or others.

 

[quantumcarl]

Life has value in the same way a potential has value. Life is valued because, as a living being, you are able to ask questions like the one you're asking.

Life offers you the potential and the right to end your own life. Value that personal gift.

Placing no value on another's life or their potential is equal to not valuing one's own potential and life. As it goes, if one thinks some human like one's self should be left to die, one is, consciously or not, placing the same condition on one's own life.

The value of life itself is all about valuing one's personal experiences. Compassion dictates that we extend the compassion (value) we have for our own life to others... regardless of what colour they are or who declares them to be not worth maintaining.

If one has no value for life, one is soon to be dead because one is an example of what life is and is not valued to the point of remaining alive.

(I see warren has said pretty much the same thing as this post)

 

[Sprinter]

Life can be full of funs if you have enough money, therefore we must not give up and try our best to earn a lot of money to enjoy our lives !

 

[Dawguard]

Why value life? You might as well ask why value yourself? If you ask yourself what you are good for, you will answer a number of things, but these do not exhaust your value. Beyond your usefulness to others, you will feel that you have a worth that is not measured in your mere usefulness. Therefore, in order to be logically consistent, if you value your own life, then you should value other life, regardless of its usefulness to you or others.

This explanation can only go so far. Sure, if you value your life you value others, but let's flip the coin around. Let's say you don't value other people's lives and because of this you don't value your own. Someone asks you how this can be, how you can be like this, and you just shrug and say we're all animals, what difference does it make. You're one of over six billion, I'm one of over six billion, what difference do any of us make? Just matter in motion cursed with self-awareness, that's all we are. My life is worthless, so is yours.

What do you say to someone like that? This existential argument ceases to work then, becuase it is dependent upon your own beliefs. Using this atheistic logic none of us are worth a damn.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This explanation can only go so far. Sure, if you value your life you value others, but let's flip the coin around. Let's say you don't value other people's lives and because of this you don't value your own. Someone asks you how this can be, how you can be like this, and you just shrug and say we're all animals, what difference does it make. You're one of over six billion, I'm one of over six billion, what difference do any of us make? Just matter in motion cursed with self-awareness, that's all we are. My life is worthless, so is yours.

What do you say to someone like that? This existential argument ceases to work then, becuase it is dependent upon your own beliefs. Using this atheistic logic none of us are worth a damn.

To the person who believes that, it's true. What can you say to them? what can you say to the Pope, or the Dalai Lama, or a religious suicide bomber? Essentially that you do or don't agree with them. What more is there to say? Nobody elected either of us to prescribe morality or philosophy to mankind.

 

[clouded.perception]

Firstly, we all (not counting mentally ill for now, I'll come back to that) value our own lives. We (typically) value the lives of our families, especially children.
Human beings are social creatures. We recognise people of our society (or social class, or creed if you're biased that way, etc.) as 'like us'. They are extended family, and valued by association. We also want to keep our immediate family safe, and the best way to do this is moral compromise. Your life is sacred to me -- mine is to you. We're safe from everyone else who adopts the value system.
Now, remember that morals are subjective and mostly involve a matter of degree. We have to 'believe' an absolute into the idea, or it's full of loopholes. We have to see ALL human life as sacred... for fear of being left out of the loop ourselves, or current or future (disabled or otherwise less valued) family members being left out. So people are reluctant to make exceptions from the compromise.
Some people, taking such morals seriously, have extended the value of life to other animals. Most do not (there is no survival-related reason to -- it would be a one-sided agreement). But we can still see ourselves in disabled human beings. Some reach the conclusion that people with little or no brain activity, or those in a perpetual coma, don't count, but for most of us the value system is so ingrained that there's at least some doubt, and we feel we should keep them alive... just in case.

 

[Dawguard]

To the person who believes that, it's true.

Is true for them, or is it true? If its true then there is no value in life. If its true for them then the meaning of life is relative, and therefore worthless. Ultimatly the argument that you have to value other life becuase that is the only way to give value to your own life is incomplete. That was my point, and we need to find a way to give absolute meaning to all life from an objective process. Subjectively everything will fall apart, so we have to view it objectivly. If this is so then there must be something inherent to human nature that gives meaning to life.

However you might choose to define this objective quality is your choice, just so long as you do define it. It might be called a soul, it might be a philosophical explanation: whatever you make it. The only important thing is that it be an objective, absolute and inalienable part of human nature.

 

[clouded.perception]

Dawguard, I don't quite get it... are you saying that the value of life is subjective?
If so, I agree; all values are subjective.
So what? Why must it be objective? Why make up an absolute for it?
By the way, there are already people who have read an objectivity into life. They believe in an entity called God.

 

[quantumcarl]

That was my point, and we need to find a way to give absolute meaning to all life from an objective process. Subjectively everything will fall apart, so we have to view it objectivly. If this is so then there must be something inherent to human nature that gives meaning to life.

We don't "need to find a way to give meaning to all life from an objective process".
Knowing the objective value of life will not help since the objective value exists with or without us observing it. We progress along with all other forms of life, carried by our value and the purpose it serves within the mechanisms of the universe (Nature).

When someone says "value is subjective", it sounds as though an individual's trivial assignment of value to a phenomena defines its value. When examining life objectively, one sees what value it has, not just to humans or to life itself... but to the entire mechanism of the universe (Nature).

Why anyone would think that one or all of us can calculate the value that life represents to the entire system of the universe is beyond me... because they cannot... nor can I.
However, objectively speaking, life would not be if it didn't have a value. Just as kelp growing in the ocean qualifies as a valued component of marine events or comets represent a potential value to other events, elsewhere.

I think what's happened is that the quality and phenomenon of "value" has been anthropomorphized to mean "whatever humans value is what defines a value". And this is far from the truth. And unobjective.

Many can argue that value is a "subjective" quality. However... that argument is all that's "subjective". Not the quality of value. Value exists with or without humans... it just wouldn't have a name without us.

Apparently life has such a value as to have survived 4 x 99% extinction events during the last 3 billion years that it has been on this planet. For some reason, life has enough value in Nature for it to be perpetuated, through thick and thin.

 

[Dawguard]

Dawguard, I don't quite get it... are you saying that the value of life is subjective?

No, I'm saying that if you draw the logic of subjective value out to its conclusion, you ultimetly reach the place where no life has value. Consider, if it is subjective then my belief that life has no value makes my own life worthless true in my eyes. Now, that is either true or false. If it is false, then so be it, because it does not stem from my belief and must therefore be by objective means. If it is true, it is either because my belief made it so or it simply is. If it is then all life is worthless. If my belief makes it so then there is nothing inherent in life that gives it value, ergo it has none.

If so, I agree; all values are subjective.

Then do you agree with the afoermentioned logic? If not, where do you disagree. If the value of life is relative, then what gives it any inherent value?

So what? Why must it be objective? Why make up an absolute for it?

Because if it is relative and not absolute, then there is nothing inherent to give it value. If it is not inherent then it isn't there and is only in existence by belief. Using this logic then value doesn't really exist, its just an illusion, and that destroys its own existence.

By the way, there are already people who have read an objectivity into life. They believe in an entity called God.

There are other people too who belief in absolutes without believing in God. But please, let's not turn this into another discussion about God, that will be sure to get the thread locked, for good reasons.

 

[clouded.perception]

If it is not inherent then it isn't there and is only in existence by belief.

Yes. Absolutely. The value of life exists because we believe it does. We believe life has value and act accordingly, thus giving it value in practicality for as long as we do so.

 

[Dawguard]

Yes. Absolutely. The value of life exists because we believe it does. We believe life has value and act accordingly, thus giving it value in practicality for as long as we do so.

In other words, there is only value if we make it so. But humanity doesn't think as a collective being. The "we" cannot think. The "I" thinks, and therefore life is only given value if every "I" believes it. But for those that don't, for those that have no value for life, are you saying that their belief is true? If that is true then there is no value to life, because anyone can make it worthless. If it isn't, then you're saying that I must follow the belief of the majority, i.e. that life has value. So with you're logic we end up in one of two places. One: life has no value because anyone can stop believing. Two: The belief of the majority takes precedent over the belief of the minority. Need I point out how wrong either one is?

The simple fact is that subjective values are inherently contradictory, and therefore false. There is no logical way around that.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Human beings have a long childhood and human interaction seems to be required for the formation of personality and the acquisition of language skills. In most people this results in a tendency to value other humans that is pretty much prior to what other moral ideas we may form. But in a minority of cases, whether through nature or nurture or both, the process results in an individual who regards other people as disposable things. The process in all its variations and complexities, is real and objective, but the results differ from one individual to another.

 

[clouded.perception]

Dawguard, subjective values aren't contradictory so long as you acknowledge that they are different people. There is no reason why everyone's idea of the value of life have to be the same, because opinions are not inherently true or false.

Anyone can make life worthless to themselves by believing it so. So what?