Are humans always morally equally valuable?

Jeanie

Jeremy1012 wrote:

obviously there is a grey area when you start talking about being bad and god 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

That's cool jeremy, I think they are interesting and valid opinions you hold.
I guess I'm just a bit of a fence sitter!
I agree that we aren't born with any particular value we just are, or come into existence as it were.
And I agree that we are not sacred, or that life above all else is not sacred.
We live, we die. That's just nature.
I guess I'm just unsure about the "morality" of life. Or imposing a set structure as to what is moral or immoral behaviour.
Obviously, I cannot condone the infliction of pain and suffering on another human being, or animal for that matter, but I'm not sure that by forgiving someone their heinous act we are giving them carte blanche to do what they want. At some level surely, a person who has committed an abhorent act that defies the morality of a majority, is deserving of redemption from society, if only for the very reason that by inflicting an endless punishment on them, we are allowing our own morality to be changed not necessarily for the better. I hope I'm making sense here.
I suppose for example, your friends the Christians who have chosen to forgive their loved one's killer have made a concious choice not to be morally bankrupted by the selfish random act of another. It would change nothing about the event, I suppose is what I'm saying. It wouldn't return their loved one to them. So they only have 2 choices really, forgive or seek retribution.
Neither choice would prove satisfactory I presume because the outcome they would really seek is that the event never took place in the first place. And no amount of retribution will return their loved one to them, but I suspect forgiveness might be as you say, easier to live with.
Having said all that, I'm really not sure where I sit in terms of repeated bad acts. But then I guess as I mentioned before it's all relative because I can view the acts of current world governments as morally reprehensible but it would seem that they are able to continue along on their merry way perpertrating at will and seemingly will never be held accountable for their actions. I don't know really. Just thinking "out loud" I guess.
But your opinions are certainly food for thought. Thank you.

soulsinging

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."

this is where you waterfall nonsense has come from? im slightly disappointed.

to answer the question, no. im quite sure i am morally superior to many people.

Binaural

decides2dream wrote:

Q...or IS that it? we just usually disregard the fact that we ARE making moral judgements in any given scenario?

Bingo.
I added the word, to prompt posters to discuss not just whether or not humans are equally valuable but whether or not it is right to think of them as morally valuable. If we take a stranger and ask them if they would save a dogs life or a humans life in a situation where both could not be saved we would expect them to pick the humans because they believe it to be the 'right' choice. Why is that?

Jeanie

Binaural wrote:

Bingo.
I added the word, to prompt posters to discuss not just whether or not humans are equally valuable but whether or not it is right to think of them as morally valuable. If we take a stranger and ask them if they would save a dogs life or a humans life in a situation where both could not be saved we would expect them to pick the humans because they believe it to be the 'right' choice. Why is that?

Hmmm......wouldn't it depend on the circumstances Binaural?

I mean if you could get to the dog to save it but were just unable to get to the human should you then leave the dog to perish?

I doubt I would. I think I would save whomever I could. Man or animal.
And I would be unconcerned about other people making a morality judgement about my effort. You do what you can in the given circumstances.

Binaural

Jeanie wrote:

Hmmm......wouldn't it depend on the circumstances Binaural?

I mean if you could get to the dog to save it but were just unable to get to the human should you then leave the dog to perish?

I doubt I would. I think I would save whomever I could. Man or animal.
And I would be unconcerned about other people making a morality judgement about my effort. You do what you can in the given circumstances.

It would, I apologise. The example is a borrowed one. The idea is that each, the human and the dog, can be saved easily however, saving one makes it IMPOSSIBLE to save the other. I do apologise, I forget how the example was worded, but hopegully you get the idea.

catefrances

Binaural wrote:

Bingo.
I added the word, to prompt posters to discuss not just whether or not humans are equally valuable but whether or not it is right to think of them as morally valuable. If we take a stranger and ask them if they would save a dogs life or a humans life in a situation where both could not be saved we would expect them to pick the humans because they believe it to be the 'right' choice. Why is that?

if it were in my power to save the human then i would do it. if it came down to an equal chance of saving the dog or the human, again i would pick the human. why? cause i am human. it's as simple as that. i place a higher value on a human life than i do any other animal.

Binaural

catefrances wrote:

if it were in my power to save the human then i would do it. if it came down to an equal chance of saving the dog or the human, again i would pick the human. why? cause i am human. it's as simple as that. i place a higher value on a human life than i do any other animal.

Exactly, you believe it is the right choice based on the justification that human life is higher than that of other creatures. But then there is the problem of why do you believe human life to be higher?

catefrances

Binaural wrote:

Exactly, you believe it is the right choice based on the justification that human life is higher than that of other creatures. But then there is the problem of why do you believe human life to be higher?

some sort of pseudo-self preservation perhaps? i am human. i can't explain it any other way or really with any more validity than that. i really see no problem.

Binaural

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.

Then what gives human life its value?

catefrances

Binaural wrote:

Then what gives human life its value?

the fact that we value our own life and we are human. therefore we value human life above all else. self preservation of the species.

Binaural

catefrances wrote:

the fact that we value our own life and we are human. therefore we value human life above all else. self preservation of the species.

So you don't believe its anything more than a desire to protect our own species?

catefrances

Binaural wrote:

So you don't believe its anything more than a desire to protect our own species?

no i don't. i'm certain only Mankind has the time to think about shit like this. all the other species are too busy just surviving. perhaps also arrogance on the part of Mankind. we are supposedly top of the food chain afterall. or so we tell ourselves.

Binaural

catefrances wrote:

no i don't. i'm certain only Mankind has the time to think about shit like this. all the other species are too busy just surviving. perhaps also arrogance on the part of Mankind. we are supposedly top of the food chain afterall. or so we tell ourselves.

I agree about the conciousness arguement. But then what about people who suffer from a serious or heavy disability, or as controversial as this is, children who aren't capable of thinking of life in such terms?

catefrances

Binaural wrote:

I agree about the conciousness arguement. But then what about people who suffer from a serious or heavy disability, or as controversial as this is, children who aren't capable of thinking of life in such terms?

what about them?

Binaural

catefrances wrote:

what about them?

Would you believe them to be as valuable as that of say a typically healthy and educated adult?

catefrances

Binaural wrote:

Would you believe them to be as valuable as that of say a typically healthy and educated adult?

i would see children as being even more so than adults. they are innocent and yet to be corrupted. the potential there is limitless.

Binaural

catefrances wrote:

i would see children as being even more so than adults. they are innocent and yet to be corrupted. the potential there is limitless.

Do mean because they have the potential to be a 'good' adult or because at present they are 'good'?

catefrances

Binaural wrote:

Do mean because they have the potential to be a 'good' adult or because at present they are 'good'?

yes.

Binaural

catefrances wrote:

yes.

But is the fact that something has the potential to be something else a good justified reason for treating it as such?

catefrances

Binaural wrote:

But is the fact that something has the potential to be something else a good justified reason for treating it as such?

yes. we are talking about the innocence of children. they are uncorrupted and thus should be treated as such and be cherished for it. we must give a child the benefit of the doubt until its actions deem us to warrant otherwise.
of course when we do this we must decide when the innocence of childhood is lost and if it even existed in the first place. is childhood universal and if not how can we possibly apply our own morality to another's existence.