First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Who determines the value of human life society of individuals?
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/6/15 , edited 6/6/15
Now... if you don't believe in a God, then life cannot have any objective value, or inherent meaning to it. Nor would objective morality exist.
Therefore, humans would be in charge of how much a human life is worth. But is it the individual or society

If the individuals life is determined by himself, then that leads to two issues. Someone who doesn't achieve anything or does makes a life out of doing malicious things would be able to justify himself and claim his life is important or worth something. Even if everyone see's this person as a villain
In other words... If Hitler won the war, he would have been the hero of WWII, the holocaust would have been right and just, and the world would benefit... but ONLY because Hitler lost the war, is he a bad guy. Maybe it's just cause I believe in a God, but that whole point of view just seems fucked up to me
Another issue would be that ones life is worthless upon declaring themselves worthless. If individuals decide their own value, then that meas that 911 is in the wrong for responding to suicide attempts.
If someone determines their own value, than ALL suicides are right and just and paramedics who try to save them are simply infringing on their freedoms.
Another issue is that all life would be equal? That sounds good but that would mean
Doctor=Terrorist
Rapist=Humanitarian
Bigot=Philanthropist
Can we really say those people are equal to one another, despite the feelings of society?

Well, that's the issue of us determining our own life... what about others. Well... it seems like our lives are determined by others. After all, it's society that's free to enact capital punishment. It's society that praises those who do good. But the problems with letting the people around you set the value of human life is the same problems associated with democracy? What if the majority of people are wrong?
If society dictates the value of human lives then ALL of the actions of the Third Reich and Spanish Inquisitions were completely morally correct. The witches burned during the Salem trials practiced a religion offensive to the populous, therefore, their murders were just.
If you're gay and you live in Iran, you must deserve to get hung, if society dictates the value of human live.
That also means if more than half the people around you tell you to kill yourself, than you should do it. Since society is so stupid so often, can we really trust our fellow peers, friends, and society to determine how much our lives are worth

Posted 6/6/15 , edited 6/6/15
I can never get myself to be interested in any of your topics or whatever you want to say. I mean.. I always try. Like I really go and make the effort to read whatever it is you have decided to ramble on about, but I just can't seem to get through any of it.

What I have concluded so far is that you, sir, have an amazing talent in making ANY topic dull.

As for your question: Human lives have as much value as their place on the food chain. Who determined that? I did.
4363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 6/6/15
I see your point and I too entertained these thoughts. Existentialist questions are rather fun to ponder. As our society sits right now, we believe that a person determines their own value, however their value depends on the scale society has set out. Personal value is one thing, societal value is another. Both should be considered as separate things, not one or the other.

At this moment in history, people who are discriminatory against blacks, gays, or many other distinctions people have given themselves are quickly attacked for their ideals. A question to be asked is why do these people not deserve a say? What's so wrong about their ideals, do they not deserve a form of protection from the majority that disagrees with them? So right now, this attitude can be construed as you either allow everyone to do as they please or else society will ridicule and ostracize you. Is this right? Society deems that it is, and society seriously outweighs the self in terms of numbers.
The thing is, these empty silhouettes can say whatever they want through the anonymity of the internet; and through the force of social change. But at the level of self will you believe what they say? When you look at the idea of confirmation bias, you will surround yourself with those who think as you do. This is a defense against society, is it not? It is also a way for you to use the society to help influence your value of self. Everyone who follows along with, I'm going to call it the Awareness Mentality, right here and now are feeling rather good about themselves. They're sticking up for everyone's right to be who they are and to not feel bad about being born with the things that cannot be changed. The groups who disagree with the Awareness Mentality are being pushed out and shamed, be it publicly or on the internet. Their value of self must come from the small, in terms to society as a whole, groups in order to ward off these vast blows to their egos.

There is a thread on the front page of the general discussion about a man who confronts some "thugs" and gets beaten up for doing so. Is this man right for challenging the dominant society in his area, or is he wrong for going against the society's wishes?
21073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 6/6/15
I would suggest sitting in on a philosophy class at a local college. The instructors I've had love answering questions like that.
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/6/15

ZenZaku wrote:

I see your point and I too entertained these thoughts. Existentialist questions are rather fun to ponder. As our society sits right now, we believe that a person determines their own value, however their value depends on the scale society has set out. Personal value is one thing, societal value is another. Both should be considered as separate things, not one or the other.

At this moment in history, people who are discriminatory against blacks, gays, or many other distinctions people have given themselves are quickly attacked for their ideals. A question to be asked is why do these people not deserve a say? What's so wrong about their ideals, do they not deserve a form of protection from the majority that disagrees with them? So right now, this attitude can be construed as you either allow everyone to do as they please or else society will ridicule and ostracize you. Is this right? Society deems that it is, and society seriously outweighs the self in terms of numbers.
The thing is, these empty silhouettes can say whatever they want through the anonymity of the internet; and through the force of social change. But at the level of self will you believe what they say? When you look at the idea of confirmation bias, you will surround yourself with those who think as you do. This is a defense against society, is it not? It is also a way for you to use the society to help influence your value of self. Everyone who follows along with, I'm going to call it the Awareness Mentality, right here and now are feeling rather good about themselves. They're sticking up for everyone's right to be who they are and to not feel bad about being born with the things that cannot be changed. The groups who disagree with the Awareness Mentality are being pushed out and shamed, be it publicly or on the internet. Their value of self must come from the small, in terms to society as a whole, groups in order to ward off these vast blows to their egos.

There is a thread on the front page of the general discussion about a man who confronts some "thugs" and gets beaten up for doing so. Is this man right for challenging the dominant society in his area, or is he wrong for going against the society's wishes?


Well... I believe in a God and some level of objective morality. And most importantly, I believe men and women have souls. Otherwise, I'd say no human life has value.

Without a soul, you'd be forced to believe the human brain is 100% of our conciousness. Meaning who we are is determined by birth and environment. If there's no soul, then human being are like adaptable AI programs. Killing a human and killing a NPC from GTA are one in the same unless you believe in some god or a soul. Otherwise, what's the difference?

The brain is an electrical device
A video game is an electrical device.
A human learns and adapts to it's surroundings
A NPC learns and adapts to it's surroundings
A human mind is powered by electrical signals
A NPC is powered by digital coding

I'd say with no god, and no objective morality... Human live has 0 value
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 6/6/15
>TFW when I dont have my computer to post my bait images.

Anyway your back!
Posted 6/6/15
I agree with tphreak. I can try and break down the parts you need to look up separately but this is gonna give me a headache. No offence. Just don't take anything you've just mentioned for granted. Start with say, Steven Brams.
33341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 6/6/15
@silversongwriter - weren't you banned for like baiting or something?

um for the question, I really don't know. I would think society because they place a value on things, like if I had a pencil I deemed a value of like 1 million dollars, it would be a million dollars, but no one will buy it at that price because no one else deems it worth a million dollars.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 6/6/15 , edited 6/8/15
https://youtu.be/iPXKfGxeHIY

I think someone laced your stash, but I kinda understand some of your ideas.

Posted 6/6/15 , edited 6/6/15
Try Erving Goffman as well.

Also this is a good book:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/index.php?q=books/rationality-action
91513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Finland, city of...
Offline
Posted 6/6/15

silversongwriter wrote:


ZenZaku wrote:

I see your point and I too entertained these thoughts. Existentialist questions are rather fun to ponder. As our society sits right now, we believe that a person determines their own value, however their value depends on the scale society has set out. Personal value is one thing, societal value is another. Both should be considered as separate things, not one or the other.

At this moment in history, people who are discriminatory against blacks, gays, or many other distinctions people have given themselves are quickly attacked for their ideals. A question to be asked is why do these people not deserve a say? What's so wrong about their ideals, do they not deserve a form of protection from the majority that disagrees with them? So right now, this attitude can be construed as you either allow everyone to do as they please or else society will ridicule and ostracize you. Is this right? Society deems that it is, and society seriously outweighs the self in terms of numbers.
The thing is, these empty silhouettes can say whatever they want through the anonymity of the internet; and through the force of social change. But at the level of self will you believe what they say? When you look at the idea of confirmation bias, you will surround yourself with those who think as you do. This is a defense against society, is it not? It is also a way for you to use the society to help influence your value of self. Everyone who follows along with, I'm going to call it the Awareness Mentality, right here and now are feeling rather good about themselves. They're sticking up for everyone's right to be who they are and to not feel bad about being born with the things that cannot be changed. The groups who disagree with the Awareness Mentality are being pushed out and shamed, be it publicly or on the internet. Their value of self must come from the small, in terms to society as a whole, groups in order to ward off these vast blows to their egos.

There is a thread on the front page of the general discussion about a man who confronts some "thugs" and gets beaten up for doing so. Is this man right for challenging the dominant society in his area, or is he wrong for going against the society's wishes?


Well... I believe in a God and some level of objective morality. And most importantly, I believe men and women have souls. Otherwise, I'd say no human life has value.

Without a soul, you'd be forced to believe the human brain is 100% of our conciousness. Meaning who we are is determined by birth and environment. If there's no soul, then human being are like adaptable AI programs. Killing a human and killing a NPC from GTA are one in the same unless you believe in some god or a soul. Otherwise, what's the difference?

The brain is an electrical device
A video game is an electrical device.
A human learns and adapts to it's surroundings
A NPC learns and adapts to it's surroundings
A human mind is powered by electrical signals
A NPC is powered by digital coding

I'd say with no god, and no objective morality... Human live has 0 value


I think the key question is does morality exist outside religions?I would say yes to this question since its part of social skills that help us get along with others better. It's constantly changing and evolving,coming up with new solutions for new problems. True religions mostly give good sets of morales bound together,but that doesn't mean one couldn't figure them out outside of a religion.It's just easier that way. Besides i think morality is an wellspring,compelling you do things for the sake of morality not fear of god/s.

Saying that human life not having any value outside religion,you are quite wrong my friend.There is the value that we think of ourselves and the value that others think of us and at some point where they crossover you'll get your current value.As they say man/woman is sum of their deeds and words which affect how others and they themselves see their selves,you dont need god in that mon ami.^^
1179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 6/6/15
Your answers to your own questions doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

Who determins the value of human life is more than one group/person. The answer is everyone and everything.

I determine my own value in life, and what other people think, usually doesnt matter whatsoever. What i think and feel is the most important to me. However, my mom/relatives will offcourse feel otherwise. The state feels otherwise. My neighbour feels otherwise.

You should read up on constructivism, might be your thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28philosophy_of_education%29
6655 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / The moon
Offline
Posted 6/6/15
You really have a good point here. It depends on the person, I guess. People can stick to a belief they follow while it could be wrong. I don't believe in suicides, but other people might. I really love Germany, their people, food, language ect., but I don't believe that Hitler was doing a right thing. It does make a difference if a person becomes another person's friend to help them seek guidance and more. That's why friends are more valuable then family, in my opinion, because there's reason why you become friends with them in the first place. Friendship can become family. Society can be cruel or helpful. People raised up more on society then by their own parents which I believe is the damn truth. You spend most of your time either on internet, tv, and school then with family. Maybe some spend more time with family, but your most around society anyways. Your right about on what's really right and what's wrong when it comes to your topic to other's set of mind on the matter. Religion on the other hand is different. It's a belief that people can be strongly in or not. Religion can lead that person life by giving them the wrong ideals or the right ideals. As long there is humans there will be hate, love, sadness, knowledge, understanding, killing ect. Humans are the worse creations to come into existence, but also the best ingenious species to ever walk on this face of this Earth. Technology and time changes because of humans. There's a difference between being civilized and barbaric.
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/6/15

Jan- wrote:


I think the key question is does morality exist outside religions?I would say yes to this question since its part of social skills that help us get along with others better. It's constantly changing and evolving,coming up with new solutions for new problems. True religions mostly give good sets of morales bound together,but that doesn't mean one couldn't figure them out outside of a religion.It's just easier that way. Besides i think morality is an wellspring,compelling you do things for the sake of morality not fear of god/s.

Saying that human life not having any value outside religion,you are quite wrong my friend.There is the value that we think of ourselves and the value that others think of us and at some point where they crossover you'll get your current value.As they say man/woman is sum of their deeds and words which affect how others and they themselves see their selves,you dont need god in that mon ami.^^


Yea, but without a soul, doing good things is only a form of programming.
You do good, because the electrical/chemical device in your body (the brain) programs you to think it's good.
Meaning, you don't even really have free will, just an illusion of free will.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.