Human worth

[Gillipig]

Why do we insist that all humans are worth equally much when that obviously isn't the case?
Great inventors and thinkers are celebrated and honored long after their deaths. Some celebrities are so interesting that they get followed 24/7. Some people are idolized and their words means more than others. Hobos are worth less than nothing. We all just walk straight by them without giving a damn. We all value family, friends and acquaintances much higher than people we've never met.
If you had to either shoot your child or 200 strangers. Who'd shoot their child?
Equal human worth doesn't even exist in court and justice system. Does anyone believe who the accused is doesn't affect the outcome of the trial? Celebrities often get away with a shorter conviction on terms no one else would get.
We're obviously not worth equally much so why the bs?

[Haggis_McMutton]

what determines worth?

[Dukasaur]

Why do we insist that all humans are worth equally much when that obviously isn't the case?
Great inventors and thinkers are celebrated and honored long after their deaths. Some celebrities are so interesting that they get followed 24/7. Some people are idolized and their words means more than others. Hobos are worth less than nothing. We all just walk straight by them without giving a damn. We all value family, friends and acquaintances much higher than people we've never met.
If you had to either shoot your child or 200 strangers. Who'd shoot their child?
Equal human worth doesn't even exist in court and justice system. Does anyone believe who the accused is doesn't affect the outcome of the trial? Celebrities often get away with a shorter conviction on terms no one else would get.
We're obviously not worth equally much so why the bs?

It's called the Social Contract.

I agree to respect your life, even though I know it to be intrinsically worthless, so that you respect mine in return. A straight 1-for-1 exchange.

[natty dread]

Is this going to be another thread where Gillipig argues for "White Superiority"?

Experts argue, yes.

[Gillipig]

Natty I don't get why you're still posting. You never write anything interesting and lack any sort of own thoughts. You're just a chameleon who takes whatever opinion that is opposite of the previous poster. Talking to you is like talking to a machine programmmed to disagree with everything you say. It's fun in the beginning but it gets old pretty quick. And you're pretty damn old!

[natty dread]

Natty I don't get why you're still posting. You never write anything interesting and lack any sort of own thoughts. You're just a chameleon who takes whatever opinion that is opposite of the previous poster. Talking to you is like talking to a machine programmmed to disagree with everything you say. It's fun in the beginning but it gets old pretty quick. And you're pretty damn old!

You're stupid.

[Gillipig]

[BigBallinStalin]

what determines worth?

usefulness to another person--maybe even non-humans, but that could be trickier to estimate.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why do we insist that all humans are worth equally much when that obviously isn't the case?
Great inventors and thinkers are celebrated and honored long after their deaths. Some celebrities are so interesting that they get followed 24/7. Some people are idolized and their words means more than others. Hobos are worth less than nothing. We all just walk straight by them without giving a damn. We all value family, friends and acquaintances much higher than people we've never met.
If you had to either shoot your child or 200 strangers. Who'd shoot their child?
Equal human worth doesn't even exist in court and justice system. Does anyone believe who the accused is doesn't affect the outcome of the trial? Celebrities often get away with a shorter conviction on terms no one else would get.
We're obviously not worth equally much so why the bs?

what I said to haggis, and


because it's a useful assumption for advancing one's argument in favor of egalitarianism--particular, equality of outcomes. See Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", where
he argues that some people living in abundance while others starve is morally indefensible." (wiki).

[Phatscotty]

Why do we insist that all humans are worth equally much when that obviously isn't the case?
Great inventors and thinkers are celebrated and honored long after their deaths. Some celebrities are so interesting that they get followed 24/7. Some people are idolized and their words means more than others. Hobos are worth less than nothing. We all just walk straight by them without giving a damn. We all value family, friends and acquaintances much higher than people we've never met.
If you had to either shoot your child or 200 strangers. Who'd shoot their child?
Equal human worth doesn't even exist in court and justice system. Does anyone believe who the accused is doesn't affect the outcome of the trial? Celebrities often get away with a shorter conviction on terms no one else would get.
We're obviously not worth equally much so why the bs?

Cuz there are a bunch of soft ass jack-wagons who's entire self worth depends on a mystical sense of collective salvation, who feel they can only be saved or complete if they save everyone else, according to their preferences of course. Plus, they use the idea you point out as a way to control people, and a way to guilt people into doing things the way they see fit.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Cuz there are a bunch of soft ass jack-wagons who's entire self worth depends on a mystical sense of collective salvation, who feel they can only be saved or complete if they save everyone else, according to their preferences of course. Plus, they use the idea you point out as a way to control people, and a way to guilt people into doing things the way they see fit.

I think you're being a bit too hard on the christians here.

[Haggis_McMutton]

usefulness to another person--maybe even non-humans, but that could be trickier to estimate.

how about potential/future usefulness ?

[Woodruff]

Cuz there are a bunch of soft ass jack-wagons who's entire self worth depends on a mystical sense of collective salvation, who feel they can only be saved or complete if they save everyone else, according to their preferences of course. Plus, they use the idea you point out as a way to control people, and a way to guilt people into doing things the way they see fit.

I think you're being a bit too hard on the christians here.

No, that seems pretty accurate to me.

[john9blue]

Cuz there are a bunch of soft ass jack-wagons who's entire self worth depends on a mystical sense of collective salvation, who feel they can only be saved or complete if they save everyone else, according to their preferences of course. Plus, they use the idea you point out as a way to control people, and a way to guilt people into doing things the way they see fit.

I think you're being a bit too hard on the christians here.

i laughed.

[Phatscotty]

Cuz there are a bunch of soft ass jack-wagons who's entire self worth depends on a mystical sense of collective salvation, who feel they can only be saved or complete if they save everyone else, according to their preferences of course. Plus, they use the idea you point out as a way to control people, and a way to guilt people into doing things the way they see fit.

I think you're being a bit too hard on the christians here.

Christians believe in Individual Salvation. Collective Salvation is not a Christian thing....

You are confused

I wasn't being hard on Christians, I was being hard on the beavers

[john9blue]

oh and we can't possibly see the future effects of every human action or every human life, plus we don't even have any definitive proof of what makes something valuable, so it's generally a safe rule of thumb to say that all total human lives have equal value, and that all human lives currently have a value proportional to the amount of time they have remaining to live.

[BigBallinStalin]

usefulness to another person--maybe even non-humans, but that could be trickier to estimate.

how about potential/future usefulness ?

That depends on the individual, and how he or she estimates another individual's potential/future usefulness, which could be negative, positive, neutral, or entirely unknown.

[BigBallinStalin]

oh and we can't possibly see the future effects of every human action or every human life, plus we don't even have any definitive proof of what makes something valuable, so it's generally a safe rule of thumb to say that all total human lives have equal value, and that all human lives currently have a value proportional to the amount of time they have remaining to live.

Wait, what? How do the premises support that conclusion?


The value of anything is subjectively determined. The benefits are compared to the opportunity costs, but this is all done subjectively; therefore, it's become incorrect to scale this up by concluding "all human lives have equal value," because clearly they don't. How do all human lives have equal value? How does that work in your mind?

[john9blue]

oh and we can't possibly see the future effects of every human action or every human life, plus we don't even have any definitive proof of what makes something valuable, so it's generally a safe rule of thumb to say that all total human lives have equal value, and that all human lives currently have a value proportional to the amount of time they have remaining to live.

Wait, what? How do the premises support that conclusion?


The value of anything is subjectively determined. The benefits are compared to the opportunity costs, but this is all done subjectively; therefore, it's become incorrect to scale this up by concluding "all human lives have equal value," because clearly they don't. How do all human lives have equal value? How does that work in your mind?

do you think that human lives have objective value? if not, my post won't mean much to you.

[BigBallinStalin]

oh and we can't possibly see the future effects of every human action or every human life, plus we don't even have any definitive proof of what makes something valuable, so it's generally a safe rule of thumb to say that all total human lives have equal value, and that all human lives currently have a value proportional to the amount of time they have remaining to live.

Wait, what? How do the premises support that conclusion?


The value of anything is subjectively determined. The benefits are compared to the opportunity costs, but this is all done subjectively; therefore, it's become incorrect to scale this up by concluding "all human lives have equal value," because clearly they don't. How do all human lives have equal value? How does that work in your mind?

do you think that human lives have objective value? if not, my post won't mean much to you.

I haven't found any convincing arguments on objective value and the some (unknown) equal value of human lives. You're free to make these arguments, but so far, your premises are incorrect. We have definite proof of what makes something valuable. The answer is that there is not "some thing" which does this. It's just you, and me, and other human beings doing the valuation.

Besides, if you don't have perfect knowledge of all future events for every human being, it still doesn't follow that "all total human lives have equal value." Some humans can be awful for the rest of human kind (e.g. those who start wars). Surely, since these guys have the potential to do terrible acts in the future, then we can't conclude that "all total human lives have equal value." If anything, their value is negative.

[john9blue]

oh and we can't possibly see the future effects of every human action or every human life, plus we don't even have any definitive proof of what makes something valuable, so it's generally a safe rule of thumb to say that all total human lives have equal value, and that all human lives currently have a value proportional to the amount of time they have remaining to live.

Wait, what? How do the premises support that conclusion?


The value of anything is subjectively determined. The benefits are compared to the opportunity costs, but this is all done subjectively; therefore, it's become incorrect to scale this up by concluding "all human lives have equal value," because clearly they don't. How do all human lives have equal value? How does that work in your mind?

do you think that human lives have objective value? if not, my post won't mean much to you.

I haven't found any convincing arguments on objective value and the some (unknown) equal value of human lives. You're free to make these arguments, but so far, your premises are incorrect. We have definite proof of what makes something valuable. The answer is that there is not "some thing" which does this. It's just you, and me, and other human beings doing the valuation.

Besides, if you don't have perfect knowledge of all future events for every human being, it still doesn't follow that "all total human lives have equal value." Some humans can be awful for the rest of human kind (e.g. those who start wars). Surely, since these guys have the potential to do terrible acts in the future, then we can't conclude that "all total human lives have equal value." If anything, their value is negative.

i never said that all humans had equal value.

i said that it's a good rule of thumb to assume that they do.

even if you assume that value is subjective, our individual judgments are limited by our (relatively) inefficient and stupid minds. we change them as we grow more intelligent. that's why i consider it a good idea for one to reserve their "absolute" judgments.

[BigBallinStalin]

i never said that all humans had equal value.

i said that it's a good rule of thumb to assume that they do.

Wait, so what do your first two sentences mean?

This is my interpretation of your stances so far:

"so it's generally a safe rule of thumb to say that all total human lives have equal value"

but

"i never said that all humans had equal value." ( = huh?)

Because

"i said that it's a good rule of thumb to assume that they do"

So, in other words, most of the time (i.e. rule of thumb) "all total human lives have equal value."


What does that mean? To paraphrase: 'Generally total human lives have equal value except sometimes they don't because the rule of thumb doesn't apply in whatever those circumstances may be.'

So... your position is "sometimes humans are equal in value, and sometimes they aren't" ???

even if you assume that value is subjective, our individual judgments are limited by our (relatively) inefficient and stupid minds. we change them as we grow more intelligent. that's why i consider it a good idea for one to reserve their "absolute" judgments.

Subjective valuation is a true assumption. You have yet to show that objective valuation is possible or even true, so given that problem, it makes sense to agree that "the value of human lives is not equal because value is perceived subjectively, thus yielding different valuations of each person."

Anyway, there's more to it than "becoming more intelligent." You can be extremely intelligent and still estimate the expected value of someone's life differently than another intelligent person might. And as an intelligent person, valuing person A and valuing person B will still yield different estimates because the value of one's life ultimately hinges on the usefulness of that person and how his usefulness is perceived--by whoever is doing this valuation. It doesn't make sense to imply that 'one's usefulness is perceived similarly across all people (or only intelligent people)' because benefits and costs will differ, depending on "the circumstances of time and place."

[Haggis_McMutton]

Hmm, I think I have a sort-of similar view to john on this one (though I wouldn't say we should all have equal worth)

Basically, here's how I see it:

Let's postulate the existance of some being with perfect information about our universe (let's call it ... hmm ... Bod )
Now, let's further say that the "worth" of a person can be objectively measured based on the repercussions his actions have on the universe, given perfect knowledge of said repercussions.
This means that Bod knows the true worth (call it "tw") of every person.

Unfortunately we do not hold perfect knowledge, so the tw of a person will forever be out of our reach. The best we can do is make a probabilistic estimate to tw based on available data (call this "pw"). No matter how much data we have we can never be sure if a person was actually "good" or "bad". E.G. unlikely as it may be it is conceivable that some future development shows to us that Hitler actually had a net positive effect on humanity.

Now, there's 2 points.
1. In my oppinion our pw of a living person is quite poor, because of the lack of data. Of course there are some exceptions for serial killers and such, but this seems to hold for most people.
2. If we were to actually posses the tw of all people, what would be the rational consequences? Puire utilitarianism. It would be deemed morally justifiable to take any acts that maximize the tw of humanity. Einstein gets cancer? It's morally justifiable to kill hundreds of hobos in attempts to save his life. A kid is evaluated to have a negative tw over his whole life? It's morally justifiable to harvest his organs for more deserving people.

My concern is that if we start trusting our pw too much (or at all) we will head down the path in point 2, only we will do it with imperfect information. I do not think that kind of society would be a good one.

Therefore I think it is valuable for a society to pretend there are fundamental rights even though they aren't really fundamental, it's not like the universe gives a shit or anything.
Of course fundamental rights don't mean everyone has equal worth, only that everyone has some minimum worth(again, perhaps barring extreme exceptions). It's restrained utilitarianism, which, imo helps to account for our imperfect information.

[Woodruff]

i never said that all humans had equal value.

i said that it's a good rule of thumb to assume that they do.

Wait, so what do your first two sentences mean?

This is my interpretation of your stances so far:

"so it's generally a safe rule of thumb to say that all total human lives have equal value"

but

"i never said that all humans had equal value." ( = huh?)

Because

"i said that it's a good rule of thumb to assume that they do"

So, in other words, most of the time (i.e. rule of thumb) "all total human lives have equal value."

What does that mean? To paraphrase: 'Generally total human lives have equal value except sometimes they don't because the rule of thumb doesn't apply in whatever those circumstances may be.'

So... your position is "sometimes humans are equal in value, and sometimes they aren't" ???

If I understand his position, he's saying that it's better to treat everyone as if their life has equal value (i.e. general rule of thumb), while recognizing that not everyone will have equal value. I tend to agree with him.

[BigBallinStalin]

As far as treating people, then sure, as an individual that sounds all and well--until you begin to realize that most people actually are not equal in value (this latter part, to me, seems to be the opposite point of what john has been supporting). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that you value Mrs. Woodruff, your family, your closest friends, and your students more so than others. Of course, you can treat people with mutual respect and love (i.e. a somewhat similar position to "treating others as if their life has equal value"); however, one's actions will reflect the variance of one's valuation for others.

For example, you probably dedicate a significant portion of your time and resources to the people you care most about compared to others. For the sake of argument, let's say you dedicate 80% of your resources to people you hold dear, and about 20% to strangers, acquaintances or whoever. This distribution of your resources signals a discrepancy in your valuation of the two groups (i.e. loved ones v. all others). Given that, you don't actually "treat everyone as if their life has equal value." Because if you did, then you'd split it 50-50. But we're leaving something out: yourself.

So, you also dedicate resources and time to yourself, which further lends support that you don't actually "treat everyone as if their life has equal value." (I don't think anyone abides by "treat everyone as if their life has equal value" idea except a very few).