Is life sacred, does it have intrinsic value?
As the title indicates, Im curious about in what way people might think life is sacred or has intrinsic value. To illustrate what I have in mind by “sacred” or “intrinsic value”, I will contrast it with the kind of value I think life does have.
I think the value of a life comes from the merits of that life. A life filled merits, however you want to define merit (a moral life, a productive life, a life that creates well being for others..whatever), has value and one with no merit (again, however one might define that, bringing misery and pain to everyone, having no ethics or morality, leeching off others work and doing none yourself etc) has no value.
So contrast that with what I hear people say about life being sacred, or having value even without any merit...the idea that life is important to preserve based on nothing other than that its life.
An example to finish: Charles Manson, kept alive for 40-50 years or whatever, provided with food and shelter, his health preserved, let out once a day for an hour, not allowed to do interviews anymore after a certain point, not allowed communication with the outside world...all to preserve his life because presumably that life has some intrinsic value that supersedes his dark deeds.
Can anyone defend the assertion of this intrinsic value life is supposed to have? Why is my position, that the value comes from some kind of merit rather than from the life itself, the wrong one?
I think the value of a life comes from the merits of that life. A life filled merits, however you want to define merit (a moral life, a productive life, a life that creates well being for others..whatever), has value and one with no merit (again, however one might define that, bringing misery and pain to everyone, having no ethics or morality, leeching off others work and doing none yourself etc) has no value.
So contrast that with what I hear people say about life being sacred, or having value even without any merit...the idea that life is important to preserve based on nothing other than that its life.
An example to finish: Charles Manson, kept alive for 40-50 years or whatever, provided with food and shelter, his health preserved, let out once a day for an hour, not allowed to do interviews anymore after a certain point, not allowed communication with the outside world...all to preserve his life because presumably that life has some intrinsic value that supersedes his dark deeds.
Can anyone defend the assertion of this intrinsic value life is supposed to have? Why is my position, that the value comes from some kind of merit rather than from the life itself, the wrong one?
Comments (128)
Heaven, eudaimonia, nirvana, moksha, etc. are all tell-tale signs, if not clear, unequivocal evidence, of the fact that the plain vanilla version of life is just not satisfactory. We need and strive for that exciting and fulfilling mod/add-on to really get our juices flowing.
value is related to pleasure
worth is intrinsic
Interesting, although not at all what I was talking about.
Edited: Also, I didnt say life has no value of any kind, so we would be is disagreement rather than agreement
I wasnt using those definitions...and I dont even see where I used “worth” at all.
The “value” I have in mind is more about utility or importance.
utility or importance are both related to pleasure aquasition
Im not following you, how does that answer my questions?
life has intrinsic value if you enjoy being around life even if it does nothing external for you
everything has intrinsic worth
I see. Well the value isnt intrinsic if there are things (merits) that you enjoy. Its those things in life you are enjoying, that are of value. What Im asking is what value does life have without those things.
Maybe we just mean different things by intrinsic. What about sacred? Do you think there is something sacred about life that we should always preserve it even in cases where the life has no real value to anyone or actually have a negative far outweighing any merits such as in the case of a serial murderer?
do you enjoy living things even if they do nothing external for you? if yes then it has intrinsic value, if no then it doesnt. because value is related to pleasure
is life sacred? well we know that its complex, and hard to create, and probably rare, and that we are heavily dependent upon its existence for our happiness and survival. so perhaps that is enough.
Going to start off with what should be obvious; life has no objective value. However, it doesn't matter what kind of life, just objective value in the sense we're using the word doesn't exist. If you recognise this question to be highly subjective then it needs to be worded differently and if not then I'd say you're lost.
My personal answer is that life does have intrinsic value to me, if I would throw out one of my possessions because it's useless to me, I wouldn't have to think about that but I wouldn't consider your life to be worth nothing just because it's not useful to me. Charles Manson is a more contentious example because rather than just having failed to meet some kind of pre-requisite for value, he's done things which make him less than useless but rather undesirable.
I think to not see life as having intrinsic value reflects a lack of value in the potential or beauty of life. Charles Manson's life has no potential and no beauty and so it's hard for even most people to see it as valuable. It's not just a value for life that protects someone like him but also because most people aren't capable of being a ruthless killer like Manson was. Putting him in jail and refusing to kill him is also a statement about how society condemns killing for any reason and refusing to kill even horrible criminals is the biggest possible commitment to that.
Other posters of new threads please take note. Meaning we’re all quite capable of using a dictionary. Dictionaries don’t suffice when we get into detailed analysis though.
Anyway, little complaint over :)
Dingo ... I guess it’s simply down to how we view ‘value’. Life for me has intrinsic value because it is a very curious phenomenon. I would even argue against saying that ‘selfishness’ or ‘misery’ is inherently void of any merit. That said I’m deeply suspicious of certain forms of moral relativism.
I would perhaps ask you where/if you can distinguish between value judgements? Meaning ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in terms of morality, aesthetic tastes, reason, etc.,. I don’t mean to burrow into a semantic debate, nor to play an endless game of reduction, but to at least open up the discussion to explore and out to use categories of ‘value’ that can then be applied to the question at hand in order to reveal a possible common thread (if possible?).
It doesnt really matter to me how “value” is defined/viewed, in the sense that im not asking for anything like an objective fact about any of this. Wherever you think the “value” comes from isnt important (to me at least), im not taking a position on that I just want to know about how the values are being applied. For example, you made a value judgement about charles manson, so lets start there. Would you view his life as having no value, when he was alive?
There is an echo here of what I was talking about in the thread on humanity’s ‘destructive’ capacities.
Things do not always have value if they are “very curious”, except if being very curious is what made it valuable in which case isnt it being very curious that has the intrinsic value?
As far as the standard of “value”, I have No particular preference or expectation, I just dont think it matters that much. Its the application I think is interesting.
Right, I suppose what I have in mind is a more practical set of values, and meant in a broad sense of humanity. Value to us, our societies. (Though not necessarily the law).
We used to burn people as witches. People like Sapolsky think we’ll look back to today’s age and comment that how we treated Charles Manson was inhumane - because he merely had a cognitive defect that they can ‘correct’.
If there is anything to value in the universe I’d say ‘life’ is something that seems quite a rarity and quite fleeting. Even if life is abundant - although nothing seems to point to that being the case - I’d still rank it as of inherent value (I’m bias of course!)
Again though, you are talking about the inherent value of something other than life, in this second case “rare” and “quite fleeting”. Those are the things you see as having inherent value, but what about life itself? (In the sense that we should preserve it regardless of practical consideration)
I value life probably due to the bias of being among the living. I kind of enjoy being alive. I’m also glad that I’ll die too or life wouldn’t really have ‘meaning’ for me without regard for mortality.
If you don’t find life of value you’ll probably not live much longer.
It's an issue of proximity, he had nothing to do with me but yes, his life meant nothing to me and I would place no value in it if he was still around. If his life was entrusted to me, it might be a different matter. It's like how I value bicycles and people being able to ride around using that method of transportation and recreation but if you ask me if I value YOUR bicycle then it's a bit difficult to answer, no, I don't but what's that got to do with me valuing bicycles.
I don't know how to value anything that I'm basically unaware of, I didn't even know Manson was dead until this thread and it wouldn't have made a difference to your argument if you had named a lesser-known criminal.
Sorry. Misread you.
You did propose an add-on viz. merit.
What about antinatalism? Where does it figure in your weltanschauung?
I think people would prefer not to exist but once they're in the thick of living they aspire for what you call "merit" - that little bit of something that makes life truly worth the effort.
I remember the animation The Croods where the vivacious daughter screams at her overprotective father "Not dying isn't the same as living". Do you agree or disagree?
It sounds like what you're actually asking is "do people have intrinsic value". Life has the status it has because it's the most basic prerequisite to "being a person".
There's plenty of investigations into why people have intrinsic value. Do you disagree with the basic idea of the "golden rule"?
Well Im trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to illustrate a distinction between life and the contents of life. Im not trying to judge life as having nothing of value in it but rather question what value a life has when it has nothing of value in it, if that makes sense. Does life on its own have some sort of sacred, inherent value, so that we should preserve it for its own sake regardless of its contents?
I meant to use Manson as an example of a general principal but I take your point.
Well Antinatalism is about an individuals value assessment and I am trying to frame this at a societal level.
Also, I do not agree that Antinatalism is correct or even coherent.
The basic idea of the golden rule is pretty useful, yes.
To me if you are framing it as about people having intrinsic value then you are talking about the merits/demerits of that life, where as Im curious about what value life is supposed to have absent those specific things that are encompassed by personhood.
It was more the context of something like someone braindead but kept alive by medical technology. Does life have value just on its own, so that we should respect and revere it even if it has nothing else going for it but itself?
We could try to nail down a non-religious sense of "sacred," though.
"Intrinsic value" is a bit of a problematic concept. We value things, or give a value to somethings as human beings. There's nothing really intrinsically valuable, as in having some objective value in itself outside of someone valuing it.
That said, most people value being alive (as opposed to being dead), as it is a prerequisite for everything else really... you need to be alive before other things even can have value to you.
So even if it is not necessarily sacred or intrinsically valuable, etc... life seems to be pretty important however you slice it.
Effectively you just asked ‘If X has no value what value does X have?’ ... you don’t need us to answer that. You’ve already decided.
Yes, I would agree life is important but I would still base it on the merits of that life. The import of a life correlates directly with the important things dine with that life.
Sorry you lost me here. What statement is contrary?
Im not saying life has no value, Im saying life has no value on its own. I dont think we should worry about preserving life in the case of a person who just goes around hurting and killing, we would only need to do that if we believed life had some sort of special, intrinsic value that we should preserve despite the hurting and killing. Some folks think we should lock that person up and expend time, energy and resources because life should always be preserved when possible.
So, to clarify, would your question apply to something like a synthetic mind? An uploaded brain or similar? That is are we talking about something specifically biological?
If you say making this about personhood is making this about merits/demerits, do you consider personhood itself a merit?
Quoting DingoJones
So, for something like the golden rule to function, you need to define who is and isn't a subject under the rule. And that is going to be a form of intrinsic value, since the golden rule won't function if you can arbitrarily exclude subjects based on what you consider merits / demerits.
Well the murderous individual could have value if they offset the murders with saving lives or something I suppose, but I was meaning to make a point about a case where there is no offset. I used a relentlessly murdering and hurting person as an obvious example of that but you are right, its not always going to be the case that a murderous person has no value. What about the cases where it actually is the case they have no value (to people/society in general)? Do you think that life has something above and beyond the contents of that life?
But who decides what is important? Who get's to determine what is valuable. The killer and murderer will think his life has value… You seem to be implying some objective standard.
Anyway, I think I agree, I think life is not inherently valuable. That is probably a leftover from religious ages. Though usually people will think their life is valuable, and usually any type of value-system will recognise the value of peoples lifes, because it is at least recognised that people value their own lifes.
But I do think life can have 'negative' value sometimes, to the person itself, and to other people too. In a lot of Western countries euthanasia is legal, precisly because it is recognised that it can happen that a life is not worth living anymore.
Interesting, didnt think of AI. Maybe people who think life has intrinsic value have something purely biological in mind as part of that intrinsic worth but to me if we are talking about personhood I dont see how we could exclude AI provided the AI has personhood (however you want to define personhood).
In order to answer your question about personhood being of intrinsic value, I would need to know exactly what you mean by personhood. If personhood has intrinsic value then personhood would have to be intrinsic to life in order for it to make life itself intrinsically valuable. I dont think thats the case, as I wouldnt say a plant or bacteria have personhood...but you might have something else in mind concerning what counts as personhood.
I dont mean to make reference to an objective standard, whatever people/society decides has value is fine.
I think we agree, and I agree with your reference to religion as well. It seems pretty obvious that religious thinking places an inherent value to life because of the immortal soul, salvation and all that.
Now you’re saying, ‘What if X has no value, can X have value?’ Adding ‘What’ doesn’t change the underlying stance you’ve taken. Just stop. Move on to someone else. I’ve also answered the second bizarre extension of the question too. It depends on who is making the value judgement.
Do I value my life over some random murderer or rapist? Of course. Is there a circumstance where I wouldn’t? Anything is possible, yet I’d say it’s unlikely.
Why not ask about a mother in labor? Is her life more precious than her child’s?
The question is about a judgement on the value of ‘life’ - any life in general. I value life in general. I also make judgements about individual lives. Don’t conflate the two questions and pretend they are one and the same.
If a terminally ill child was going to die tomorrow would you still feed the child or think, ‘What’s the value in that?’ If Charles Manson was going to die tomorrow would you still feed him or think, ‘What’d the value in that?’. I understand that most people’s initial reactions would different between the two, but I do think that if we cannot see past the wrongs of our fellows (and understand their capacity as reflective of our capacity) then we’re probably lacking something.
Anyway, thanks for pressing. It turns out I did have something more to say :) just goes to show that persistence does sometimes pay off :D Thanks again
Ok, moving onto someone else then, as per your request.
Rationality is universal in scope. Are antinatlists just quirky, sad people or do their arguments make sense?
I don't know how far you'll agree with me but a common thread that runs through all human aspirations and objectives is a state of Awakening. Parents teach their children the way the world actually is and how to cope. Religions advertise a higher state of consciousness and philosophy tries to sell sagacious wisdom. This enlightened state of mind is the ultimate goal of every human. Yes, they differ from each other but all involve a waking up as if to say we're all in some kind of deep slumber.
Note that all I've said above are claims only about humans - all but a few awakened ones are in deep sleep. Can we not take one step further and say that among the multitude of life-forms only humans have the capacity to appreciate life and with that realization make an effort towards improving and sustaining all life on the planet? We can take this route and even claim that the universe itself has awakened in us.
Does this make life sacred or have intrinsic value?
I wouldnt say so, no. That is only one type of life you are talking about, there is other life that doesn't have that appreciation as you yourself stated and therefore life itself cannot have this intrinsic value.
Does life have intrinsic value? Aren't all or any values it could have intrinsic? Again, this depends on perspective (language/expression).
Personally, I think life is more complex and vast than the average understanding of humans. Most of the time, we (humans) like to think life begins with our appreciation of it. But what about before humans were on earth? We still had animal and plant life, right? Do they constitute life? Why? How?
While biology is a reasonable way to define certain aspects of life, it is still too deficient to designate what life is in its entirety. Organic, inorganic, living, non-living, etc, are just attempts at defining certain aspects of activity and interaction within life. And what about nature (with its ecosystems, genetic developments, creative expressions, intelligent operations, etc)? Another fact we don't often acknowledge is that we are a part of nature, we belong to it. And yet, human appreciation, while important to us, is not the only priority to nature. Nature has its own operation and appreciation (satisfaction, balance, interactive associations, etc) of itself and which is far superior to anything we could define. In fact, human understanding could be expressed as a replica of nature's appreciation. Though insufficient, it is ever progressing.
(A metaphysical approach to a subject such as life is inevitable since the fundamental premise of our knowledge of life entails considerations beyond mere experience of or contact with 'things', primarily because our perspective and language are limited with respect to the activities beyond what we designate as our selves. Therefore, it is inevitable that, in some ways, we must express ourselves symbolically/colloquially.)
Reality is life. Often, we express life as a perspective/part of reality.
What value does life need other than being life? Isn't life the fundamental of all meaning, significance, value, merits and demerits?
What I mean is that life is itself self-defining because it isn't defined by anything other than itself. Life gives meaning to its components not vice-versa. Merits, demerits, value and the lack thereof are all subjective to life.
To assign value to life is to imply it is subjective. Subjective to what? Subjective how? Merits and demerits are with respect to certain relations in life. And yet, with or without those relations, life can still unfold.
For example, plates and spoons cannot be said to be intrinsic to nutrition. Primarily because we can receive nutrition even without them. However, for most people, they (plates and spoons) are given a role in the larger process of nutrition but they don't confer any value, nutrition being a value in itself.
It's the same with life - human values and appreciation have their role in life but they don't define it. Life is value in itself.
Imo, life is the epitome of meaning. It (through us) confers values, merits and demerits. The reverse doesn't work.
Well, I consider personhood to have intrinsic value. For the purposes of this thread, I'd stick with a standard concept of personhood, so humans have it, and maybe some other animals.
Whether or not that personhood is based on biological life or some other substrate is irrelevant in my opinion. So in that sense, I wouldn't say that life itself has intrinsic value.
Ok, so how does that inform your views? If life has no intrinsic value, what are your thoughts about suicide, or imprisoning the Mansons or Hitlers of the world rather than just killing them?
What about in the case of life in prison, do you think we should spend the resources to lock the worst of us up in a cage untill they die of natural causes?
That's an extremely different example from what you said below...
Quoting DingoJones
I don't think that's the same context at all. I can see making a solid argument in favor of considering life in prison no real life, but you just expanded the context.
Who decides for the person in prison?
Who decides what is a high enough quality of life?
In the context of the brain dead patient, we are presuming that there is no one experiencing anything. That, to me, is a qualitative difference. IOW if we compost that body other life can flourish. We can easily think life is sacred and turn off that person's life support, without even the loss of complicated advanced life being lost.
Oh I misunderstood, I thought you didnt think life was sacred or intrinsically valuable.
I just wondered how you would answer other examples of lifes sanctity given your views on the braindead one. Didnt mean to imply they were the same thing, that was a tangent on my part.
I think personhood has intrinsic value, so I am going to respect the life of people as a basic requirement for that. I think suicide is not a moral issue in and of itself, though it's problematic if you have a partner or children who depend on you. As to the issue of a death penalty, I think there are plenty of reasons not to have it - it's hugely costly to do properly, misjudgements are irreversible, it causes psychological harm to the people administering it and, perhaps most importantly, I consider being on death row a form of torture. That more or less leaves lifelong imprisonment as the harshest available sentence.
Do you think that people on death row would choose death over death row? If not, then doesnt that pretty clearly show which is the worse punishment? Why would people routinely choose the more torturous option? (Death row, according to you)
Anyway, so you don’t think life has intrinsic value but because you think personhood has intrinsic value then human life has intrinsic value because personhood is intrinsic to human life? (Excepting cases like being braindead where personhood has gone away)
Is that right?
That's not really how the human psyche works. People can be extremely miserable and still also afraid to die. I don't think there is a good justification for inflicting that extra pain.
Quoting DingoJones
Well the value of life wouldn't be strictly speaking intrinsic. But the distinction is fairly minute in most practical circumstances, unless we go beyond biological life.
Ok, I understand. Thanks.
Quoting Echarmion
Im asking about choosing between death and death row. You implied that death row was the worse punishment, did I misunderstand what you meant?
The idea is that, as a punishment, death is absolute, so doing torture + death would just be adding gratuitous cruelty. It is, however, not possible to administer the death penalty without added cruelty, and that's one reason I consider it generally immoral.
That's leaving out the question under what circumstances it might be permissible to enact an absolute punishment.
It's quite interesting that humans are considered virtuoso tool makers. We started off with simple stone axes and now we have lasers and rockets. We seem to have "progressed" even beyond that - aiming beyond life itself to something purportedly greater. Quite naturally life transforms itself into an instrument/tool to achieve that greater-beyond. "I'm alive" becomes "I live for
When viewed like above life appears to have instrumental value rather than intrinsic value - serving only as a means of achieving the greater-beyond. Buddhists consider life, especially human life, in this way - as the best opportunity to achieve nirvana.
What may be relevant to the discussion is unlike a person using a hammer, where there's a distinction between the user and the tool, no such separation exists when life uses life to achieve the greater-beyond.
Ah, I suppose that is another conversation altogether. We most likely disagree quite a bit. My only real problem with the death penalty is the risk of a false conviction.
:death:
Quoting DingoJones
It seems to me that whatever can value - evaluate - a living thing other than itself, does so in terms of itself, and thereby tangentially extends its own self in relation to another life; and whether or not this relating - evaluating - is mutual, it is, or becomes, intrinsic to both lives. The capacity to value - select, interpret, relate to - and, thereby, to be valued for (e.g.) following fighting feeding fucking etc seems intrinsic to life itself (if, by life, what is meant is, in part, 'ecology-bound agent-systems maintained and self-replicated via metabolising, while being metabolized by, other ecology-bound agent-systems'). I know, I know, over-general and simplistic ... as all intuitions are; more gestalty word salad than not, but maybe, DJ (et al), you get the gist?
[quote=DingoJones]Why is my position, that the value comes from some kind of merit rather than from the life itself, the wrong one?[/quote]
Not wrong, just that the distinction (i.e. in-itself vs for-itself (pace Sartre)) is one that makes no difference vis-à-vis life since, as (my?) intuition suggests, living is evaluating (vide Nietzsche). "Merit" is, after all, merely an evaluation of an evaluation that's fallible, and often misplaced, and merely a cognitive artifact of an absurdly overdeveloped specimen that's wholly unrepresentative of the whole of life on earth. From amoeba to gut bacteria, flatworms to silverback gorillas ... the very existence of the living seems to consist in evaluating their ecology for, at least, affordances to furthering survival.
A metaphysical, or even existential, question; however, not, as the OP posits, an ethical concern yet (i.e. at this preliminary stage of analysis).
:flower:
"When we speak of values, we speak under the inspiration, and through the optics, of life. Life itself urges us to determine values. Life itself values through us when we determine values." ~F.N.
Quoting DingoJones
Yes, the risk is unacceptably high - and not an effective deterrant - e.g. Term of art is irreversible error in the U.S. Besides, doesn't the executioner have to devalue (i.e. deny) his own intrinsic value which he shares in relation (no matter how tenuous) with the condemned every step taken towards the moment of execution? Might he too irreparably lose (i.e. amputate) some intrinsic value at the moment he irreversibly takes his other's life?
Sorry, Im not sure how to respond to most of that. Any chance you could tighten it up a bit? Its hard to tell where any of what you said relates to what yiu quoted. Im not trying to be a dick, even you mentioned word salad.
Hint: Read just the bolded.
(Not trying to be a dick either. Besides, you don't have to respond ...)
I would say those things are intrinsic to experience, not life, after all you can be alive and not conscious, or alive but braindead.
Also, I had tried to draw a distinction between individual value and collective value. Most people value their own experiences or life, but some people have no value (or such little value we can easily live without them, like serial killers) to the rest of us. Its the latter Im curious about, in such contexts as people on death row or life support. I often hear people defending preserving life in those circumstances by saying things like “all life is sacred/worth preserving” or by otherwise attributing some intrinsic value separate from the actual merits of that life (again, in the case of a serial killer where their life brings only vast suffering to others).
I’d say: Life has no intrinsic value and its value is not based on merit either.
“Value” always means that something is appreciated by something else or by itself. It is wanted by something or someone. (Money is valuable because we want it.) The object that has value needs a subject, therefore nothing can have intrinsic value.
The life of an evil person is at least appreciated by himself. (The object has an appreciating subject even though they happen to be identical. It’s not the same as intrinsic value.) Therefore, his life has some value and if there’s no other compelling reason to kill him, it would be wrong to kill him.
Any organism, any human or animal life, and even plant life has the potential of being valued/appreciated. But not only that, an artificial organism, a machine that is, or even a thing has the potential of being valued. That simply means that we shouldn’t destroy anything if we have no particular reason to do it. Everything is somehow valuable.
Now of course there would be hierarchy of things depending on how strong a capacity they have for being appreciated, and there’s good reason to believe that a human being usually has a stronger capacity for that than an animal or a worm or a cup. Therefore, human life is usually very valuable, but not always. A person in a coma who will never wake up, has no value.
I had included a caveat, the subject is society at large. So your points about the “self subject” or “someone subject” dont really address the question.
Also, you end up broadening the scope to include the value we place on anything at all. Of course you are welcome to do that but it negates my question, its moot at that point isnt it?
Also, your last sentence contradicts at least some of what you said. By your own standards that person in a coma can have value to someone else, could it not? It cannot also be true that the coma person has no value.
You set up two possibilities: Life having intrinsic value (it being sacred) or life having value through merit (for society at large). My purpose (and conviction) was to deny both of them as a source of value, but I was still trying to answer the question how a life may have value. In my view, the only way anything can have value is as an object towards a subject. “Self subject” as you call it, someone appreciating himself as an object is one possibility, so it does address the question.
Quoting DingoJones
Broadening the scope may seem irrelevant to your question, but I did it to illustrate the nature of value. There is nothing fundamentally different about valuing a life and valuing anything else.
Quoting DingoJones
The coma person can have no value when the intrinsic value of life is denied. That person, or rather that thing, can have no value for anyone for what it is. Someone may think it is valued when confusing it with the person it used to be or for having the false hope that it will wake up, but it is hardly possible to value the coma person for just what it is. (Unless you want to imagine some perverted reason.)
If the person has an emotional attachment to the comatose person, and values that attachment then the comatose person has value of a kind. It doesnt matter if you think they should value the comatose person or not...if they do, then it has value. You seem to be saying such a thing isnt possible but to me it clearly can have value to that individual at least, or are you talking in terms of value to society at large like I originally specified?
If thats the case, then that puts you in the camp of life not having any intrinsic value. You dont seem to think anything has intrinsic value, is that correct?
Charles Manson convinced a bunch of impressionable, gullible and desperate young adults that a devastating race war was about to occur and that they needed to kill some white folk in order to set it off. He was completely delusional and lost his freedom while gaining nothing but notoriety and some misguided fans.
Nonetheless, it's great that he never lost his self-esteem, even if he probably should have.
poeple need to take responsibility for their own ignorance and bad behavior. not blame it on charles
They are guilty of allowing themselves to be manipulated and he is guilty of manipulating them. They are both being blamed for what they did and not more.
Charles Manson was literally convicted for directing the murders and not committing them. Murderer or not a murderer, it was a crime for him to tell these kids to kill and he spent his life in jail for it. There's nothing to debate on that front... You aren't even aware of what Manson was convicted of?
Actually, I fact-checked myself and found this:
"In 1971, he was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people. The prosecution conceded that Manson never literally ordered the murders, but they contended that his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy."
He wasn't even convicted of directing the murders but actually just putting ideas in peoples heads and manipulating them to think in this murderous way.
well in my book it would depend how old they were. if the killers were kids then he may be culpable of some level of forcing them to do. otherwise he should have never gone to jail.
you cant send someone to jail for having a bad attitude, even though america does it all the time. american justice system commits more crime then anyone
I'm happy for people who opening talking about how certain people need to be murdered to be jailed for it. Inciting people to violence should be a crime, especially if the "incited" actually commit murder. He spent most of his life in or out of jail and when he was free he was getting drunk and high and being a hippy. Even without the murders, his value is debatable, when you factor in the murders he becomes a serious danger to society.
He's fine for one to start talking about as the lowest in society, if you grant that his life has value that has yet to be spoiled or cannot be spoiled then you seem to think everyone's life has value. I think that Manson was in the eyes of most, not offering anything but actually just hurting people for his entire life and he hurt many people throughout his life in all kinds of ways.
Many, including myself and probably Manson, never cared whether our lives were thought of as intrinsically valuable by complete strangers. I don't think Manson's life of living 23 hours a day in a metal box had either value or beauty, I think there were legitimate reasons for putting him there too. If it were up to me, I'd likely have executed him. Those things are not to do with Manson though, they are to do with me. That's the whole purpose of the thread anyway.
Quoting DingoJones
Did you chose Manson after considered thought, or was it just a quick choice? Because he obviously presents problems for people because his situation is so complex.
In a way his life does have value, locked up in his cell, fed, ministered to by the state. The value is the demonstration of the fact that we the state own him, we can take his life whenever we want or we can keep him locked up for the rest of his life; his life now belongs to us. He’s not kept alive because we value his life. This is the message to the world from the state.
But there is nothing sacred about his life. Sacred seems to me to be some unique flame that life contains that is felt by others. However that’s so obviously subjective, but that’s all we seem to be anyway. Even after death there is still the sense of the sacred about people. Once again held in memory and subjective but still capable of moving many people.
The sacredness of life; the assault to your senses when a child dies or is killed, compared to the elderly.
What is that?
Well it doesnt present a problem for the point im making, the facts about his crimes etc are irrelevant...but yes it was just the first person I thought of that we wasted time and money and energy to keep him alive for no reason I can see other than some sort of intrinsic value life is supposed to have.
the murderers should be in jail for 20yrs
the inciter should be in jail for one year tops. any longer and thats a crime against him
Depends on level of involvement, when the inciter was a significant factor in the death then he can claim equal responsibility. Manson lived like the leader of a dangerous gang, he participated in and inspired the criminal activity of this gang. Inciters like Manson don't need the actual person who committed the crime, that person is replaceable but provided Manson was allowed to be free, he would have continued to incite people to commit crimes. He was good at doing it, he would have continued to have been good at doing it and more people would be killed as a result of his actions.
I don't really understand your position, those who recruit others for violence are literally the people you should least want free.
i have the same position when it comes to swatting. some guy calls the swat team to someones house as a prank and the cops kill an innocent person in the house. as far as im concerned the police should be investigated and at least fired. the prankster should get one or two years in prison tops. yet they gave him 20 yrs and the police walk free. this is injustice.
personally i would want manson to be free simply because of freedom of speach. he has a right to say or do anything he wants as long as he is not physically commiting violence against others himself. if people are being influenced by him then they are ignorant. it would be better to punish and educate them then to blame manson. otherwise its injustice against manson.
same goes for hitler. did hitler even kill a single person himself? mind you this case might be different because he had power over others. he could command someone to be killed for not listening to him.
the level of power matters. if someone has nothing but words and no power then they should not be punished for inciting. because its just freedom of speach
But, you know shitposting is fun and all, right?
Quoting OmniscientNihilist
Yeah, I'll leave this to the mods. @Baden?
Someone turn the lights on, it's getting really dark in here, fast.
I think thats at least part of it yes. That is one reason given for the sacredness of life, that life has been endowed by god or gods with intrinsic value. It doesnt look like anyone wants to make that claim though...so where does life's intrinsic value come from? (Contrasted with life having value for that particular lifes merit.
No, not really. I assume by religious purpose you mean purpose given by some kind of divine authority?
No, I don’t think so.
Well where do you think the intrinsic value comes from?
Welcome to the future.
I would say something like joy or happiness has intrinsic value.
That poster has been banned.
But you would not knowingly take a life?
Nobody with any sense could see things as you do, words have power and when they aim and result in murder, the punishment should fit the crime. I am done debating the matter with you, what you are saying - and even about Hitler, it's just silliness.
Yes, if I had a good reason. Self defence for example.
Quoting ovdtogt
But we do ascribe some idea of sanctity to life and the taking of it is regarded as the worst crime a human can commit. Why?
Yes, if I had a good reason. Self defence for example.[/quote]
But still, your answer suggests that you need a very good reason for doing it.
Edit: and interestingly enough you chose a reason that is most acceptable in society, that you had a good reason to do it, an accepted defence.
I imagine my threshold for what justifies taking a life is below the average persons, perhaps well below. Rapists, pedophiles, murderers, slavers, sex traffickers...The loss of any of those lives would be perfectly fine to me.
Those people you accept having their lives taken are people who have attacked the sanctity of life. Their death is commensurate with their crime. So it does seem to me that you do ascribe some sanctity, some intrinsic value to life
Its the merit of life that gives it value, lives with no merit I dont really care about. So its not intrinsic. Id say the opposite.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Nothing can have intrinsic value, it’s nonsensical, I don’t even know what it would mean. Something is supposed to have value even though no one wants it. That is, it’s valuable without being valued. That is, it is valuable even though it’s not valuable. A = not A is obviously a fallacy.
When you say that happiness has intrinsic value, the meaning of “intrinsic” is different. We want happiness because we want it itself, not because we want to use it to gain something else. We certainly want it, it’s the thing we want the most, so it’s extremely valuable. The other things that some say have intrinsic value (in a different sense) no one may want at all, and then it can’t be valuable.
I used the comatose person as an example of case where it is possible for a life to have no value. But sure, if someone for whatever reason still values that thing in a vegetative state, even that has value.
You see, although I don’t think life has intrinsic value, I do think it has value in most cases, so it’s a little difficult to come up with an example of when it hasn’t. Like I said earlier, something, a life, can have value for itself, being appreciated by itself, and that’s not the same as intrinsic value.
As an extension of Aristotle's and Kant's ethics, the short answer would be yes.
You mentioned Charles Manson. Consider politically and ethically a consistent across-the-board theme of being opposed to killing of any kind, with some exception. What would that look like?
As a broad brush; it means no capital punishment, no abortion, no wars, et al.. Is that an extreme form of idealism that one could theoretically aspire to with some exceptions? Sure why not.
Ask yourself the question of, when humans contemplate the act of procreation, whether they're thinking about killing other humans and whether their motivations would be against the sanctity of life. I think it's safe to say their logic would be relative to life being sacred and having intrinsic value. Could that be part of the reason why you and I exist (why our parents had us whether planned or unplanned)?
And is that too idealistic, unrealistic, or something else? Maybe I'm missing something obvious not sure...
Or perhaps a metaphysical question would be, does one have an intrinsic will to live or a will to die?
Quoting DingoJones
What would you regard as ‘merit’?
[quote="DingoJones;355461" the merit of life that gives it value, lives with no merit I dont really care about. So its not intrinsic. Id say the opposite.[/quote]
I feel that I might not have made by post clear enough.
Taking the life of a murderer or rapist is fine with you. That’s because you regard their crime as heinous. And what was their crime? It was the assault on the sanctity of someone else’s life.
For you that deserves the death sentence. That is because you regard life to have intrinsic value and it should not be interfered with in any way by another.
Thumbs up
The things about that life that are worthwhile or valuable to society, for example a virtuous person, or a skilled person. This opposed to life itself being whats worthwhile/valuable.
Its not the assault on lifes sanctity, the crime is only heinous if the life has merit, otherwise I don’t really care.
I think we are just using terms a bit differently.
Edited to add: i do not think that life should not be interfered with in any way, and its exactly because I dont see life as having sanctity that I lack any real concern for the lives of murderers.
Quoting DingoJones
What merits would a three year old child have?
Depends on the 3 year old. Generally I would expect there to be things... parents, siblings or friends that care for the child, most of the time even a 3 year old brings something to the table, a collection of traits that net benefits for society or will benefit society. I dont have a very high bar, meaning Im not asking much more than just not ruining things for other people.
Preservation of the species: Our ability to work together as a 'social' group is a survival mechanism. We are a very weak species and our strength is in numbers. A kind of herd mentality through social cohesion. The lives of member of the same group are considered 'sacred'. This is not the case for members outside of this group (the other, the stranger). These people can be killed with impunity.
Quoting ovdtogt
Try it.
Quoting 3017amen
Thanks. It’s always nice to know that you’re making sense after all.
Quoting ovdtogt
Well even if it was it isn’t now. I don’t believe you would be able to kill a stranger in cold blood, if you did, even in another culture you would be charged with murder, the worst crime of all. And even if that culture went soft on you your own culture would condemn you for the crime of taking a life.
I’m not sure what you mean.
Quoting ovdtogt
I understand that you are trying to demonstrate that man can kill others and how and why we do it.
But what I was getting at was that you personally could not walk out your door and kill someone in cold blood, even if it was ‘the other’, and if you did you would be judged harshly for doing so. Why is that?
I’m not saying that we don’t or can’t act immorally. History makes that very clear. And it’s a very tired argument that we know what is immoral because we are moral creatures. Why we do these thing is another matter, don’t you think?