This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Kill one, save a million
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Alright. Then my system is extrinsic as well... assigning numerical values to people based on their effect on society doesn't ultimately have a subjective factor, its just difficult to actually put your thumb on the exact value of it, just like how when you're determining whether something was murder or not, you have to mill over the facts, and ultimately you don't know the truth for certain (you never can), but you make a call that its reasonable enough to say its murder, just like I make a call whether or not its reasonable enough to say whether or not someone is worth more than someone else.
Good luck on your date though.
I'm in too good of a mood to be too negative. So I'll just leave you with this:
(I normally wouldn't quote wikipedia, but they phrased this perfectly)
An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself,
independently of other things, including its context
. An extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that
depends on a thing's relationship with other things
.
(
Source
)
So more than the fact that it's very hard to objectively determine these "values," the very fact that these "values" are in relation to everything else makes them extrinsic.
In your model, this person is assigned a "4" because he falls between persons "5" and
"3".
If there is one person left on earth, your system would seem to say he has no worth because worth can only be determined in relation to others.
Would you agree with that?
"When god gives you lemons, you find a new god."
Or you could just make lemonade.
Post by
MyTie
"When god gives you lemons, you find a new god."
Or you could just make lemonade.
He's trying to say that God is subjective here. His greater point is that God doesn't exist. When he packages it so cleverly it sounds real cool too.
Post by
Tyristrasz
Negs.
I live by the general mindset that a good portion of those million people prolly had it coming in some way, shape, or form.
We're all evil, pretty much without exception.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
We're all evil, pretty much without exception.
"The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Post by
blademeld
This has gone way off topic.
Interesting responses, but in net value and social standings, people are not equal. Even law has been criticized as bending for people of higher social standing.
If you're religious, feel free to believe people are equal in God's eyes. It just happens that people aren't God.
For a reply to the OP:
No I would not, for one, I wouldn't believe in that prophecy in the first place, as my religion dictates that God wouldn't encourage me to kill someone, meaning that even if it was truely a prophecy I would find another way.
Besides, I would think somone would be crazy to be so zealous as not to question if it was a dream or hallucination.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Interesting responses, but in net value and social standings, people are not equal. Even law has been criticized as bending for people of higher social standing.
People are not equal because laws say so? How does that make any sense. If that were true then the very fact that the Nazis made laws against the Jews made the Jews less human.
Don't come in here dismissing everything discussed up to this point and then assert your position. If you have a position contrary to what's been discussed, argue for it.
Post by
blademeld
Interesting responses, but in net value and social standings, people are not equal. Even law has been criticized as bending for people of higher social standing.
People are not equal because laws say so? How does that make any sense. If that were true then the very fact that the Nazis made laws against the Jews made the Jews less human.
That's not what I said, I said law has been criticized for asserting that difference, not that the law makes that difference in itself.
You've confused cause and consequence.
Don't come in here dismissing everything discussed up to this point and then assert your position. If you have a position contrary to what's been discussed, argue for it.
I'm not dismissing everyone else's opinion. I'm voicing my opinions and views on what I believe to be facts and addressing both sides of the argument. I'm also pretty certain that I'm maintaining as much neutrality as possible by suggesting two definitions of equality, which, by themselves, are pretty damned neutral.
I don't believe that you can argue against the fact that a homeless person and Bill Gates have different net values in which I mean how much money they own, nor do I believe that you can argue against the fact they have different social standings.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Okay, sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying.
From what I understand of what you are saying now, human value is composed of two things: money and social standing. Is that correct?
Post by
blademeld
Nope. I suggested two parts, the first is where people can be viewed as not equal if you want to assess their worldly value. The second, for religious people like you and me, can view everyone as equal under the eyes of God.
Let's put it in an example: if you were looking for someone to endorse your product, would you hire a famous person, or a nobody? If they offered everything else the same, you would go for the famous person, that's inequality due to social standings.
It's not physical, but it's what they have under their belt, experience and reputation, which are all assets and as valuable as money.
An example catering to the net value would be something like bail money, someone who can afford it versus someone who couldn't. If they were equal, they would both be in prison or both be out of prison, but that money sets them apart and one person is out and about whereas the other is stuck until court.
In terms of viewing them as an equal, it would be something like being struck by lightening, where the chances are mostly random. Ever hear the saying "everyone is equal in death?" Although that's not quite true anymore with improved life in the first worlds.
In summary, equality is in the eyes of the beholder.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I suggested two parts, the first is where people can be viewed as not equal if you want to assess their worldly value. The second, for religious people like you and me, can view everyone as equal under the eyes of God.
That
's the point that is causing me to be confused.
First of all, I don't believe God or religion have anything to do with the issue; I have been and will continue to argue from a purely philosophical standpoint.
Secondly, "for religious people" makes it sound like you're saying the intrinsic value I place on life is actually something extrinsic, because it only applies to us .
Yes Bob makes more money than Fred. Yes, Joe has more hair on his head than Larry. However these examples are meaningless. Why? Because money and hair aren't what define a human person. If I go bankrupt and/or bald I don't loose my humanity. So if we're going to discuss
human
value we need to discuss things that apply to humans
qua
humans.
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
You're right, I shouldn't have said religious because that implies God is necessary when it's not, however:
Whether you like it or not, to some people money is part of human value.
Hence, you can purchase bail as per my example.
Your arguement, in sum, is that people should be valued on how "human" they are, which is according to ethics or morals. In which case, as I've repeated, is variable.
Social standings entails to a bit more, it includes, but is not limited to and does not have to include friends, financial standings, education, appearances, health, etc.
If everyone was equal in their morals and knowledge, we could have a perfect case of communism, no one would cheat the system better or worse. But to point and case, they're not.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Anyone else notice that when Hyper inters a thread most of the time it changes topics and turns into a debate?(don't mean anything bad by this just saying what i have been noticing)
Orly?
Looks pretty on-topic when I entered.
And you calling this discussion off-topic shows that you don't really understand the issues that the OP's question raises.
Whether you like it or not, to some people money is part of human value.
People doing something doesn't make it right.
And bail isn't placing a monetary value on their person, it's putting a monetary value to their promise.
Your arguement, in sum, is that people should be valued on how "human" they are
Not quite. My argument is that
human
value (which is what the issue is...if the OP had said 1000 animals, that would be a different issue) can only be measured by things intrinsically human.
which is according to ethics or morals.
Well, not to be picky, but that would actually be anthropology, not ethics.
In which case, as I've repeated, is variable.
And as I've repeated, it's not (if by "it" you mean personhood). I am and always will be a person; the second I stop being a person, I stop being me.
Social standings entails to a bit more, it includes, but is not limited to and does not have to include friends, financial standings, education, appearances, health, etc.
Raise a child in complete isolation without friends, money, education. And let's assume he's ugly and has a terminal illness. Is he not a human? I would say, yes. Despite he lack of "social standings" as you call it, he is still intrinsically human.
If everyone was equal in their morals and knowledge
Whoever said we had equal knowledge? Not I. And if by "equal in their morals" you mean everyone has the same moral standards that must be met? If yes, then I agree on that point.
we could have a perfect case of communism, no one would cheat the system better or worse.
Communism is a political system, not an anthropological system.
Post by
blademeld
People doing something doesn't make it right.
That would be a question of morals versus ethics, take for example tribes eating human flesh without physical necessity to do so. It is right to them, but wrong to us, well, at least some of us.
And bail isn't placing a monetary value on their person, it's putting a monetary value to their promise.
If I were to break it down: Promises are based on honesty, hence you're placing value on a person's honesty, hence, money value can be associated with part of being human, hence, my argument.
Well, not to be picky, but that would actually be anthropology, not ethics.
Anthropology is the study of how humans interact in their culture, which is dictated mainly on ethics and morals. Unless you were refering to something like forensic anthro.
Not quite. My argument is that
human
value (which is what the issue is...if the OP had said 1000 animals, that would be a different issue) can only be measured by things intrinsically human.
Raise a child in complete isolation without friends, money, education. And let's assume he's ugly and has a terminal illness. Is he not a human? I would say, yes. Despite he lack of "social standings" as you call it, he is still intrinsically human.
Your basic point is "if they're human they're human" there is no value associated with them because you don't compare it to anything else. This would be in reference to my second point, rephrasing it, it would be "all humans are equal in the spirit of equity."
Reasoning: They were born human.
The first argument, where human value is not equal, is relative to another person.
Is that kid in your example worth more than a dog? Sure.
Is that kid worth the life of another kid who has a bright and promising future? No.
And as I've repeated, it's not (if by "it" you mean personhood). I am and always will be a person; the second I stop being a person, I stop being me.
I don't think you're understanding the possibility of still being a person while being worth less than another and more than another.
Whoever said we had equal knowledge? Not I.
Hence the if.
This is another point I can give an example in, if two people are exactly the same, but one of them knows how to operate a computer, this person has that much more value than the other.
And if by "equal in their morals" you mean everyone has the same moral standards that must be met? If yes, then I agree on that point.
That's what prison is for, to put aside the outcasts. Who decides what these moral standards are anyways?
In your definition: If they don't meet the standards, are they less human?
Communism is a political system, not an anthropological system.
My point was that if everyone were truly equal, communism would probably work just fine.
tl;dr
You think if they are worth less than another person, they would cease to be a person, I say that if you make more money and have better social standings, education, health, etc. you're worth more than the other guy.
Example: if all people are equal, then it should be right to have one person suffer to save hundreds, the government, any government can actually do this by cutting down everyone's standard of living and sending off the excess to third world countries. We do not do this.
I'm also tired of these debates: for one, replies get longer each time, if you want to continue this discussion, I can often be found on #wowhead IRC, otherwise, I'm not motivated to continue/reply in this thread.
Post by
TheMediator
So more than the fact that it's very hard to objectively determine these "values," the very fact that these "values" are in relation to everything else makes them extrinsic.
In your model, this person is assigned a "4" because he falls between persons "5" and
"3".
No, there's an absolute hard value for each person, however its harder to determine, and estimating their values isn't all that useful outside of the context of the other people's numbers. When I watch 3 people run a race, if I see one person finish first, second, and third, I rank them accordingly, but they had absolute hard values for their times underneath it, but I don't particularly care for those numbers since what I was doing was comparing them in the first place.
Anyways, I don't see how someone who could justify executing murderers really make claims that all lives are equal. If you really believed that, you would believe killing a murderer to be as sinful as strangling a newborn baby.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Sadly, Blademeld was making a very good point, but he left us D=. Hyper, love your logic man but you two are in agreement here. You two both think that one human life is equal to another human life however, Blademeld simply said that is not the case in the real world. He was saying that society sees certain people to be worth more than others. If I shot a homeless person, premeditated and I were to kill a billionaire in the same way, the punishments would be totally different. The only variable would be their social standing. Although I think like both of you, I am not wearing blinders, I know full well that people in this society are not equal.
QED (I really like that phrase Hyper, looked it up last night =D)
There is option 3. Perhaps individuals are worth less than others, and perhaps not. I think that it is not responsible to attempt to place a scale onto people. When you say 'billionaire', and you say 'bum', these are money brackets. Consider this:
Did you know that George Orwell lived in a shelter before he became famous? Harry Edmund Martinson was also homeless, and he won the Nobel Prize for his later works. There are
more
like that.
That list wasn't hard to find. It would be even easier to pull up a list of scum ball billionaires.
All I'm saying, is that the value of human life may be different, but it is irresponsible to think yourself the authority on such things, or think that anyone else is either.
Post by
TheMediator
All I'm saying, is that the value of human life may be different, but it is irresponsible to think yourself the authority on such things, or anyone else.
I don't think of myself as the authority, but sometimes one has to make a decision without all the information one would like to have. Even with as much evidence as one could possibly gather, one can never prove with 100% accuracy that one is right, but sometimes one must make a choice and the best one can do is go with what the evidence points towards.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, there's an absolute hard value for each person, however its harder to determine, and estimating their values isn't all that useful outside of the context of the other people's numbers.
It's more than not useful. 4th means absolutely nothing without first, second and third.
When I watch 3 people run a race, if I see one person finish first, second, and third, I rank them accordingly, but they had absolute hard values for their times underneath it, but I don't particularly care for those numbers since what I was doing was comparing them in the first place.
But run speed is not something intrinsically human. Provide an example of something that's intrinsically human that can be ranked, and maybe I'll see your point.
Anyways, I don't see how someone who could justify executing murderers really make claims that all lives are equal. If you really believed that, you would believe killing a murderer to be as sinful as strangling a newborn baby.
I don't justify killing murderers. Why would you assume I do?
You two both think that one human life is equal to another human life however, Blademeld simply said that is not the case in the real world. He was saying that society sees certain people to be worth more than others.
As I pointed out also, extrinsic systems of value have no bearing on intrinsic worth. Black slaves were still 100% human even though society didn't value them as such. So to justify ones position based on extrinsic values you'd have to deny all intrinsic value whatsoever.
I don't think of myself as the authority, but sometimes one has to make a decision without all the information one would like to have.
If you don't have the information necessary to make a decision concerning human value, don't make it.
Staistics on Blacks
I'm not totally sure what your point is--that because the majority has a prejudice against the minority that therefore the minority is less human? Just because the minority makes less money than the majority they are less human?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.