Are humans always morally equally valuable?

Binaural

Catefrances' thread has inspired me

So, thoughts?

catefrances

what do you mean by morally equal?

morality if a social construct and is not universal. when we are born we are all equal. as we grow and mature we make choices that we must accept responsibilty for. do we harm other people by our actions.? do we feel guilt or remorse? do we act in our own self interest? are we deliberate in our actions? do we think we are above the law? are we arrogant enough to believe ourselves to be special at the expense of others? and what morals do we consider valuable and what values are dispensible? are our morals arbitrary because society deems them valuable or do we truly believe in what we preach and the actions we take? and if we truly believe does that make us exempt?

Jeanie

Think the problem is the word "always" in your original post Binaural.

Nothing is always.

Edit: Well except maybe death and taxes!

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

Think the problem is the word "always" in your original post Binaural.

Nothing is always.

Edit: Well except maybe death and taxes!

I would pare it down even further:

Are humans valuable?

My perspective, of course, being of the Earth, in general.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

I would pare it down even further:

Are humans valuable?

My perspective, of course, being of the Earth, in general.

I think so, of course, but in terms of the Earth itself, perhaps not.

decides2dream

i have read the thread title Q a few times over, and i still don't really get it. even forgetting the 'always' in it....morally....equally......valuable......? i can see the Q "are humans always equally valuable"...but throw the 'morally' in there, and i just don't get it? how can we ever be 'morally equal'.....? aren't morals a choice, a belief system, perhaps set upon by society, and many enforced with laws....but overall. a subjective choice? so yea, i guess i don't get the 'equality' in it........and then thrown in 'valuable'...and yea, i am just confused.

as jeanie said thou, 'always' just doesn't fly, b/c yea...there is no 'always'....especially in regards to human behavior, and moral choices, etc. each word in there, there ARE always exceptions.

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

I think so, of course, but in terms of the Earth itself, perhaps not.

You need to do more hiking, dammit.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

You need to do more hiking, dammit.

I do?

surferdude

Binaural wrote:

Catefrances' thread has inspired me

So, thoughts?

Sounds great in theory but in practice we know they're not. Just look at the abortion rate of Down's Syndrome babies, about 90%. That's a lot higher than the abortion rate in general, so in practice peopel have said that a person with Down's Syndrome is not morally equivalent to someone without Down's.

decides2dream

surferdude wrote:

Sounds great in theory but in practice we know they're not. Just look at the abortion rate of Down's Syndrome babies, about 90%. That's a lot higher than the abortion rate in general, so in practice peopel have said that a person with Down's Syndrome is not morally equivalent to someone without Down's.

but why does one even need to preface that Q with the word 'morally' in it? that's the part i simply seem to fail to 'get' with this Q. the same question, and your answer, could be arrived at with simply asking 'are humans always equally valuble'...yes? so why throw morals in the Q...or IS that it? we just usually disregard the fact that we ARE making moral judgements in any given scenario? such as your, quite good btw, example?

surferdude

decides2dream wrote:

but why does one even need to preface that Q with the word 'morally' in it? that's the part i simply seem to fail to 'get' with this Q. the same question, and your answer, could be arrived at with simply asking 'are humans always equally valuble'...yes? so why throw morals in the Q...or IS that it? we just usually disregard the fact that we ARE making moral judgements in any given scenario? such as your, quite good btw, example?

You're right. I only threw in morally equal because the original poster did.

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

I do?

Well, now, all you need to do is get out there on the trail
itself. If you find the right one you will come across a waterfall. This is a day hike, nothing major, so, I suggest when you get to the waterfall you make yourself comfortable, have a seat, enjoy your solitude, and perhaps munch on whatever goodies you may have brought along.
After awhile you may hear a rustling in the bushes. Then, sure enough, you notice it is a Bear there, with you, next to the waterfall!
You watch quietly but the bear finally notices you and rears up on its hind legs. You notice a ham shank firmly planted on his groin area. He drops a bottle of Jergens lotion.
"what are you doing here?" he asks.
You tell him that to be a better earth-human you chose this day to go out and experience being human, and, "would like like some cheese and crackers with that ham?"
He obliges, says, "I am soulbearsinging, bear of the waterfall, my girlfriend isn't putting out."

decides2dream

surferdude wrote:

You're right. I only threw in morally equal because the original poster did.

yea, so i guess we'll have to wait for him to return, and thus clarify.....just exactly what he means, and wants, with his Q. i really would like to know just what his thought process is in regards to throwing in 'morally' in the equation there.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

Well, now, all you need to do is get out there on the trail
itself. If you find the right one you will come across a waterfall. This is a day hike, nothing major, so, I suggest when you get to the waterfall you make yourself comfortable, have a seat, enjoy your solitude, and perhaps munch on whatever goodies you may have brought along.
After awhile you may hear a rustling in the bushes. Then, sure enough, you notice it is a Bear there, with you, next to the waterfall!
You watch quietly but the bear finally notices you and rears up on its hind legs. You notice a ham shank firmly planted on his groin area. He drops a bottle of Jergens lotion.
"what are you doing here?" he asks.
You tell him that to be a better earth-human you chose this day to go out and experience being human, and, "would like like some cheese and crackers with that ham?"
He obliges, says, "I am soulbearsinging, bear of the waterfall, my girlfriend isn't putting out."

I wouldn't have thought it possible but yet another bloke on here has rendered me speechless from giggling!!!

Jeremy1012

if you mean should we treat each human's worth as the same, regardless of their actions or personality or choices in life, the answer is, in my opinion, hell no. I don't buy all this sanctity of life bull that we are fed by the majority of organised religions. you are what you make yourself and if you make yourself a worthless piece of shit, don't expect to be treated any other way. there is no way that some sick person like Ian Huntley or any other child killer is equal in value to an average person.

It's something that bothers me about pro-lifers too. I am well aware that babies born before the 23 week cut-off point have been born premature and have gone on to have full, healthy lives but who is to say that before they are born, they have some inherently sacred value. when does a baby stop being an embryo and become a child? I am no advocate of abortion but when having a child will have a detrimental effect on the mother or other people, why should that unborn foetus' worth be deemed higher than that of the people who have actually existed independant of their mothers, making conscious decisions about their lives and creating themselves as an individual. As far as I'm concerned, we are what we make ourselves, not what we are born. If I was a killer or a rapist or something like that, I wouldn't expect people to treat me like I was worth as much as a person who hadn't acted like that.

gue_barium

Jeremy1012 wrote:

if you mean should we treat each human's worth as the same, regardless of their actions or personality or choices in life, the answer is, in my opinion, hell no. I don't buy all this sanctity of life bull that we are fed by the majority of organised religions. you are what you make yourself and if you make yourself a worthless piece of shit, don't expect to be treated any other way. there is no way that some sick person like Ian Huntley or any other child killer is equal in value to an average person.

It's something that bothers me about pro-lifers too. I am well aware that babies born before the 23 week cut-off point have been born premature and have gone on to have full, healthy lives but who is to say that before they are born, they have some inherently sacred value. when does a baby stop being an embryo and become a child? I am no advocate of abortion but when having a child will have a detrimental effect on the mother or other people, why should that unborn foetus' worth be deemed higher than that of the people who have actually existed independant of their mothers, making conscious decisions about their lives and creating themselves as an individual. As far as I'm concerned, we are what we make ourselves, not what we are born. If I was a killer or a rapist or something like that, I wouldn't expect people to treat me like I was worth as much as a person who hadn't acted like that.

Nearly all of your argument relates to the criminal justice system. Interesting. As you know, our taxes pay for this system, and it's sort of ironic, in the face of your argument, the dollar value we actually do place on the scum you refer to.

Jeanie

Jeremy1012 wrote:

if you mean should we treat each human's worth as the same, regardless of their actions or personality or choices in life, the answer is, in my opinion, hell no. I don't buy all this sanctity of life bull that we are fed by the majority of organised religions. you are what you make yourself and if you make yourself a worthless piece of shit, don't expect to be treated any other way. there is no way that some sick person like Ian Huntley or any other child killer is equal in value to an average person.

It's something that bothers me about pro-lifers too. I am well aware that babies born before the 23 week cut-off point have been born premature and have gone on to have full, healthy lives but who is to say that before they are born, they have some inherently sacred value. when does a baby stop being an embryo and become a child? I am no advocate of abortion but when having a child will have a detrimental effect on the mother or other people, why should that unborn foetus' worth be deemed higher than that of the people who have actually existed independant of their mothers, making conscious decisions about their lives and creating themselves as an individual. As far as I'm concerned, we are what we make ourselves, not what we are born. If I was a killer or a rapist or something like that, I wouldn't expect people to treat me like I was worth as much as a person who hadn't acted like that.

Not that I'm sure that I agree or disagree with you Jeremy, but I'm just wondering how this fits in terms of morality being a fluid thing?
I mean people are not all bad all the time, just as they are not all good all of the time and back to my point about it all being subjective, who decides this anyway? Also as humans deciding to apply our morality and consequences to a situation doesn't always mean we are right. And now that I'm sounding like ahnimus :eek:, I'll just shut up and await your reply.
I'm just really curious as to what you think.

baraka

Are morals relative or absolute?

Jeremy1012

gue_barium wrote:

Nearly all of your argument relates to the criminal justice system. Interesting. As you know, our taxes pay for this system, and it's sort of ironic, in the face of your argument, the dollar value we actually do place on the scum you refer to.

I thought we were talking moral value, as opposed to monetary value. Am I right?

Jeanie

baraka wrote:

Are morals relative or absolute?

Both? Maybe?

Jeremy1012

Jeanie wrote:

Not that I'm sure that I agree or disagree with you Jeremy, but I'm just wondering how this fits in terms of morality being a fluid thing?
I mean people are not all bad all the time, just as they are not all good all of the time and back to my point about it all being subjective, who decides this anyway? Also as humans deciding to apply our morality and consequences to a situation doesn't always mean we are right. And now that I'm sounding like ahnimus :eek:, I'll just shut up and await your reply.
I'm just really curious as to what you think.

obviously there is a grey area when you start talking about being bad and good because like you say, people are neither of those all the time but I just can't accept that humans should all share some kind of innate value. I don't think I was born with any particular value. whether or not I have such a value now is not really for me to say, I'd link to think so, but I'm damn sure that if I do, its because of the person I am... the person that I have made myself. thats not to say that just because I might do a good deed once that I'm more valuable as a human than someone who hasn't and likewise, if I mess up, I don't think I should be considered worthless but there has to be some level where we stop pretending that everyone is so sacred. I know christians who have had members of their families brutally murdered for no reason and they have forgiven the killer. I can not comprehend that. that person has not yet done anything to deserve their forgiveness. they shouldn't be giving that person their forgiveness, other than for the obvious reason of being able to move on to stop from being consumed by hate. forgiving these people in order to accept that they are still humans with some worth is giving those people a carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. if they want to have the same worth as other people they should earn it. they shouldn't be born with it.

obviously just my opinions