Human worth

[puppydog85]

I know quite well what logic and arbitrary mean symmetry. I think it is funny that you seem to know all about me. I gave a classical explanation as to why I think if I am right, I must therefore think that you are wrong. Basic logic there. I am not dealing with whether or not my premise is right.

[Symmetry]

I know quite well what logic and arbitrary mean symmetry. I think it is funny that you seem to know all about me. I gave a classical explanation as to why I think if I am right, I must therefore think that you are wrong. Basic logic there. I am not dealing with whether or not my premise is right.

Of course you aren't, I doubt anyone looking at your arguments would even consider that you're dealing with your premise.

[puppydog85]

And on that note I am finished answering you symmetry. Mark me down as another Christian fully refuted by your brilliant reasoning.

[Symmetry]

And on that note I am finished answering you symmetry. Mark me down as another Christian fully refuted by your brilliant reasoning.

Nah- you're not Jesus, and there are plenty of Christians willing to talk to me without claiming that they are representative of the entirety of Christian thought.

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, it is not sinking to my level. The original question is: Why should humans be treated as equal. I gave the Christian viewpoint. .

Except that isn't really the Christian perspective, either in theory or practice. In theory, women and men, children and adults are all to be treated differently. The bit about "to each is given a different measure" is not about equality. Nor is the concept of people being given different gifts.

You can, at best argue that Christianity says people have something close to equal worth. We are all valuable in God's eyes. But when you start talking about equality among humans, you are talking not about the Godly idea, but a very human one. And, churches are far from immune from the basic judgements every person makes every day.

In practice, wealthy individuals are treated very differently from non-wealthy. Some people have more ability in some areas. The children of a pastor and the children of the local drunkard are almost never treated truly alike. Some argue (I ABSOLUTELY disagree!) even that the Bible dictates races be treated differently.

Great points, PLAYER.

But puppy seems to be mixing two separate topics.

Positive/"scientific" approach:
Originally, he posted: "Humans are all *created* equal and in the image of God. This is in theory the driving force behind the Christian idea of all men being created equal. That is not saying that they are all equal in abilities ect., just that they all have equal worth in the eyes of God."

In other words, everyone was created equal and has equal worth from God's perspective. (How he knows this? Well, this would most likely explain how he knows this).


[u][u]Normative approach[/u][/u]:
But then he switched to a position on "why should humans be treated as equal," which from a Christian perspective wouldn't sync well if one incorporates the views in the Bible, which is basically your contention, and I agree with it. The Bible is bent on making life difficult for gays and women. I don't think he knows how to respond because I'm not sure he realizes that he's making two different types of arguments.

[BigBallinStalin]

I gave short answer in the beginning because I like to keep things on track. But I think it is safe to say that this thread is now highjacked. So here it goes:
Stalin, if you won't take me seriously I see no reason to take you seriously. No point in proceeding. You say I run in logical circles and I must agree. But with the caveat that all thought will eventually do so. Kantian first principles and all that. Everyone has an ultimate authority. Mine is God, if you have a problem with that deal with it. Yours could be any number of things but I will hazard a guess and say that you have the common atomist/materialist viewpoint which has it own little circles that it runs in. It is the uneducated who sit in their own circle mocking others (what was the song? who wave little flags saying hooray for my side... I think it was CCR or somebody)
The real fun starts when we see whose little circles are internally coherent and make the most sense of reality (Plato's great downfall)

As far as religion goes, no, I can't take someone seriously on that subject if they accept circular reasoning to be a "logical" position (this applies to the Judea-Christian-Islamic concept of god). If you said that you're a deist, then that's fine. We've reached the unfalsifiable, and we could go our separate ways from there. I'm completely fine not talking about religion to you.

But we can certainly argue about the worth of humans. So far, by implication you believe child rapists should be considered to have worth, or if you want to flop to a previous post, you've implied that child rapists are equal in worth to other humans. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I gave you my position here


I'm not sure what you mean by "atomist/materialist viewpoint," so I can't answer that. Circular reasoning for Bible- and other holy book- believers is basically this. What's the circular reasoning for empiricism? Or positive science/economics?

[puppydog85]

Got me stalin. I did switch from "created" to "should". I should stop posting from work.

Yes, the wheel of power is correct. The technical term though is self-authenticating. I take then that Kant is not something you are familiar with? I am still not sure if I should take you seriously, I mean, how can I take somebody who believes that all knowledge comes from sensory experience seriously? I thought Hume destroyed it.

And I am totally serious here but you clearly are either fishing for an answer (nothing wrong with that I do it all the time) or you really have not studied empiricism. That it is self refuting and circular is one of the most common attacks on it ( ie Russell and F H Bradley).

[PLAYER57832]

Player, I must confess myself completely lost as to what your response is about. Give me time and maybe I will figure it out.

If you claim that people are equal, then how do you explain that women and men are not treated equally, that people are given different gifts... and that tale after tale discusses not equality, but the opposite.

Note.. I actually have an answer, but it almost seems as if you wish to just deny that anyone could say this.

[puppydog85]

They are created equal in worth. Not equal in talents and gifts. Hence the early Christian propensity to save abandoned baby girls and the modern reluctance to abort a Down's syndrome child. I am sorry if that did not come across, due to my familiarity with my jargon I did not realize that was not the clear reading. Does that help what I was saying any?

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, it is not sinking to my level. The original question is: Why should humans be treated as equal. I gave the Christian viewpoint. .

Except that isn't really the Christian perspective, either in theory or practice. In theory, women and men, children and adults are all to be treated differently. The bit about "to each is given a different measure" is not about equality. Nor is the concept of people being given different gifts.

You can, at best argue that Christianity says people have something close to equal worth. We are all valuable in God's eyes. But when you start talking about equality among humans, you are talking not about the Godly idea, but a very human one. And, churches are far from immune from the basic judgements every person makes every day.

In practice, wealthy individuals are treated very differently from non-wealthy. Some people have more ability in some areas. The children of a pastor and the children of the local drunkard are almost never treated truly alike. Some argue (I ABSOLUTELY disagree!) even that the Bible dictates races be treated differently.

Great points, PLAYER.

But puppy seems to be mixing two separate topics.

Positive/"scientific" approach:
Originally, he posted: "Humans are all *created* equal and in the image of God. This is in theory the driving force behind the Christian idea of all men being created equal. That is not saying that they are all equal in abilities ect., just that they all have equal worth in the eyes of God."

In other words, everyone was created equal and has equal worth from God's perspective. (How he knows this? Well, this would most likely explain how he knows this).

This is essentially what I believe, though some subtleties matter.

[u][u]Normative approach[/u][/u]:
But then he switched to a position on "why should humans be treated as equal," which from a Christian perspective wouldn't sync well if one incorporates the views in the Bible, which is basically your contention, and I agree with it. The Bible is bent on making life difficult for gays and women. I don't think he knows how to respond because I'm not sure he realizes that he's making two different types of arguments.

Good point. I guess I would go a tad further, though, because to justify so inherently differing treatment of women (I will leave out homosexuals just because I don't really want to divert yet another thread into that topic right now ) means they have a different value. Many Christians justify this by pointing to the fall of Eve. I have a slightly different view on this (which I have gone into in other threads, so I won't repeat here), I am interested in how pd85 views it.

[Woodruff]

I don't find it derogatory. No more derogatory than haggis .

As an American, I must state for the record here that haggis is DELICIOUS.

[Woodruff]

Symmetry, specifically I am offering a rather popular protestant (and maybe R. Catholic) view of human worth. There are fringe elements in any view and I am not defending or advocating them. I really don't get this just calling things arbitrary. Am I supposed to offer a full blown report on why I believe what I believe? You ( I think it was you) made some snide comment evidently without reading the thread about the theses backing my position. Well, there it is. I am offering a little more information on why I believe it. Am I supposed to list every theologian who backs my position? You want more, try Cornelius van Til and Douglas Wilson.

Of course I think what I believe is right. Which makes the opposite of what I believe wrong. Basic logic there, if A then non-A. If you want my reasons in why I think I am right just ask.

So, rather than the Christian view, you're offering an arbitrary view as a certain type of Christian? There's really little point in asking you for your reasons, as your default position is that whatever you believe to be right is right.

I don't think that's fair. My default position is that whatever I believe to be right is right (like you haven't noticed THAT! <grin>). Doesn't EVERYONE have that as their default position?

[PLAYER57832]

I don't find it derogatory. No more derogatory than haggis .

As an American, I must state for the record here that haggis is DELICIOUS.

and illegal to be sold in the US

[Woodruff]

I don't find it derogatory. No more derogatory than haggis .

As an American, I must state for the record here that haggis is DELICIOUS.

and illegal to be sold in the US

My experience is from my long time in Europe.

[BigBallinStalin]

Got me stalin. I did switch from "created" to "should". I should stop posting from work.

Yes, the wheel of power is correct. The technical term though is self-authenticating. I take then that Kant is not something you are familiar with? I am still not sure if I should take you seriously, I mean, how can I take somebody who believes that all knowledge comes from sensory experience seriously? I thought Hume destroyed it.

And I am totally serious here but you clearly are either fishing for an answer (nothing wrong with that I do it all the time) or you really have not studied empiricism. That it is self refuting and circular is one of the most common attacks on it ( ie Russell and F H Bradley).

Oh no. You weren't a radical skeptic, are you? Then, when all else seemed lost, you found God as your objective truth?

Re: your 2nd question, no, I don't believe that. If all knowledge includes uncertainty, then it's apparent that all knowledge can't come from sensory experience because that which is uncertain is beyond our sensory experience at that moment and possibly forever. Knowledge is imperfect, but it also depends on one's time-frame. If there's knowledge that exists beyond our sensory experience, but if it's highly certain to be beyond our access, then it's probably not worth considering.

Examples include: the unfalsifiable, and maybe in a million years, an alien civilization will stop by and say, "hey, here's some knowledge not from sensory experience," or maybe we are brains in a vat, but those aren't good reasons to stop empiricists or scientists in general from expanding the horizons of human knowledge, thus leading to all sorts of useful stuff, like modern medicine and increased standards of living. Or, we could just give up and live in squalor while forever doubting sensory experience! Or a few people could write a book, and we could roll with its circular reasoning and discard more productive means for discovering truth, raising standards on the certainty of claims, understanding cognitive bias, understanding why people "see" Jesus in their toast, etc.


2. So, assuming that empiricism suffers from circular reasoning, what are the tradeoffs, as in is neglecting one in favor of the other worth it? And why?


Anyway, on these matters, I love Wittgenstein and some of the pragmatists. For epistemology, I stick with Ludwig von Mises, who picks up from Kant, with his own development of a prior synthetic propositions. If I cared more about philosophy, I'd begin bridging Wittgenstein and Mises. Since I'm predominantly focused on economics and national security, I don't care much about how many times a person prays or what god he believes exists because that won't help him nearly as much as other means and possibilities.

[BigBallinStalin]

Symmetry, specifically I am offering a rather popular protestant (and maybe R. Catholic) view of human worth. There are fringe elements in any view and I am not defending or advocating them. I really don't get this just calling things arbitrary. Am I supposed to offer a full blown report on why I believe what I believe? You ( I think it was you) made some snide comment evidently without reading the thread about the theses backing my position. Well, there it is. I am offering a little more information on why I believe it. Am I supposed to list every theologian who backs my position? You want more, try Cornelius van Til and Douglas Wilson.

Of course I think what I believe is right. Which makes the opposite of what I believe wrong. Basic logic there, if A then non-A. If you want my reasons in why I think I am right just ask.

So, rather than the Christian view, you're offering an arbitrary view as a certain type of Christian? There's really little point in asking you for your reasons, as your default position is that whatever you believe to be right is right.

I don't think that's fair. My default position is that whatever I believe to be right is right (like you haven't noticed THAT! <grin>). Doesn't EVERYONE have that as their default position?

But doesn't that depend on the subject matter? I know some people are more humble on topics they don't know much about. I noticed the opposite of that when people talk about economics.

For example, I don't bust into conferences and ask questions about national security while assuming my beliefs are correct. I'm pretty open about things which I'm not certain about or which I find to be valuable.

[BigBallinStalin]

They are created equal in worth. Not equal in talents and gifts. Hence the early Christian propensity to save abandoned baby girls and the modern reluctance to abort a Down's syndrome child. I am sorry if that did not come across, due to my familiarity with my jargon I did not realize that was not the clear reading. Does that help what I was saying any?

1. What do you mean by "[humans] are created equal in worth"?


For example, with your position, how does a human created in the US compare to a human created in Bangladesh? Their per-capita-GDPs differ. Their present value from their possibilities to produce in the future also differ... Clearly, that's a difference in worth at the time of being created.

And, you say, "equal in worth," but the question remains: what are they worth? Equally? Okay, but how much? By what criteria?


2. Who or what decides worth? Because earlier you stated god did, but now with your child abandonment/abortion example, you're talking about valuation from the individual level.

[Woodruff]

Symmetry, specifically I am offering a rather popular protestant (and maybe R. Catholic) view of human worth. There are fringe elements in any view and I am not defending or advocating them. I really don't get this just calling things arbitrary. Am I supposed to offer a full blown report on why I believe what I believe? You ( I think it was you) made some snide comment evidently without reading the thread about the theses backing my position. Well, there it is. I am offering a little more information on why I believe it. Am I supposed to list every theologian who backs my position? You want more, try Cornelius van Til and Douglas Wilson.

Of course I think what I believe is right. Which makes the opposite of what I believe wrong. Basic logic there, if A then non-A. If you want my reasons in why I think I am right just ask.

So, rather than the Christian view, you're offering an arbitrary view as a certain type of Christian? There's really little point in asking you for your reasons, as your default position is that whatever you believe to be right is right.

I don't think that's fair. My default position is that whatever I believe to be right is right (like you haven't noticed THAT! <grin>). Doesn't EVERYONE have that as their default position?

But doesn't that depend on the subject matter? I know some people are more humble on topics they don't know much about. I noticed the opposite of that when people talk about economics.

No, I don't believe it does depend. People may be more WILLING TO CONSIDER ALTERNATE POSITIONS (i.e. your "humble"), but if they have any reason for holding a "belief" about a subject, then it only makes sense that they would default to their belief being the correct one. The only time I can see this as not being the case is if someone has NO INFORMATION or SO LITTLE INFORMATION THAT THEY DON'T FORM AN OPINION on a subject, in which case they don't really hold a "belief" in it either.

For example, I don't bust into conferences and ask questions about national security while assuming my beliefs are correct. I'm pretty open about things which I'm not certain about or which I find to be valuable.

I don't honestly see how this relates to the point.

[puppydog85]

Ok, Stalin. I will take you seriously for a minute here.

1. really? Mises is your epistemologist? Correct me here, but I thought the man only wrote about economics, not about the theory of knowing all things? Any while I have not really gone into the area, I do love the Austrians with regard to their economics.
2.What are the tradeoffs? That is a huge area of discussion and I am not going there on a forum board. I think history proves that ideas have consequences and philosophy is one of the major driving forces in history. But that would devolve into a discussion of history.
3.Actually it does affect national security. Certain people pray 5 times daily and act in certain fashion based on their beliefs. Bush prayed a certain way and felt justified in raining down "shock and awe" on a hole in the wall Arab country. You cannot in any serious fashion think that how one bases their view of morality does not affect economics and national security.
4. Equal in worth. MOST certainly not economic worth! As in all are created equal in 1. Nature 2. Rights 3.Dignity. I do not think that everyone is equal in all regards ie. socioeconomic level, mental intelligence, ect. I must have assumed that we were talking about equality in a brotherhood of all men sort of fashion ( ie. John Locke), not in a economic sense. A child rapist has worth and must be treated with regards to that and in the same manner as I would treat a pastor or a kid from bagladesh. I won't torture him, I would give him a fair trial etc. etc. but I would cheerfully send him to the chair. Even if he repents and becomes a Christian he still goes.
5. Come on you are seriously asking me who decides that worth? God does.
6. No, I never was a radical skeptic. But I know people who have been, but what did that have to do with anything?

[Woodruff]

Ok, Stalin. I will take you seriously for a minute here.

1. really? Mises is your epistemologist? Correct me here, but I thought the man only wrote about economics, not about the theory of knowing all things?

BigBallinStalin has the misguided notion that economics can and should control everything.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, Stalin. I will take you seriously for a minute here.

1. really? Mises is your epistemologist? Correct me here, but I thought the man only wrote about economics, not about the theory of knowing all things?

BigBallinStalin has the misguided notion that economics can and should control everything.

Wherever there be markets, thar shall economics go. But it's not just catallaxy. You've got economics in many of the other social sciences like sociology, anthropology, politics, law, history, development, culture, environmental, ecological, etc., etc. These are all valid and proper fields for economic analysis, but it's not controlling things. Economics provides a unique, clear, and universal perspective on understanding social phenomena, which is why economics can be applied to many different fields of study.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, Stalin. I will take you seriously for a minute here.

1. really? Mises is your epistemologist? Correct me here, but I thought the man only wrote about economics, not about the theory of knowing all things? Any while I have not really gone into the area, I do love the Austrians with regard to their economics.
2.What are the tradeoffs? That is a huge area of discussion and I am not going there on a forum board. I think history proves that ideas have consequences and philosophy is one of the major driving forces in history. But that would devolve into a discussion of history.
3.Actually it does affect national security. Certain people pray 5 times daily and act in certain fashion based on their beliefs. Bush prayed a certain way and felt justified in raining down "shock and awe" on a hole in the wall Arab country. You cannot in any serious fashion think that how one bases their view of morality does not affect economics and national security.
4. Equal in worth. MOST certainly not economic worth! As in all are created equal in 1. Nature 2. Rights 3.Dignity. I do not think that everyone is equal in all regards ie. socioeconomic level, mental intelligence, ect. I must have assumed that we were talking about equality in a brotherhood of all men sort of fashion ( ie. John Locke), not in a economic sense. A child rapist has worth and must be treated with regards to that and in the same manner as I would treat a pastor or a kid from bagladesh. I won't torture him, I would give him a fair trial etc. etc. but I would cheerfully send him to the chair. Even if he repents and becomes a Christian he still goes.
5. Come on you are seriously asking me who decides that worth? God does.
6. No, I never was a radical skeptic. But I know people who have been, but what did that have to do with anything?

1. Sure. He starts out with a few a priori propositions and builds from there. I guess it would be more accurate to label the first five or so chapters of Human Action as foundationalism? I'm not saying this is the "end all, be all" of epistemology, but Mises provides a very useful framework for approaching human decision-making. For me, that counts, so I'll seek my comparative advantage elsewhere.
2. Haha, you can do what you want with this one.
3. I agree that prayer and religious beliefs affect decision-making, but they're not primary causes for most of the topics which I study. Nearly all Muslims of various commitment to Islam pray; however, with these Muslims, we still would find different outcomes from their decisions over time. They experience different incentives and face different institutions. That's partly what I'm talking about. To make the case clearer, if a sub-Saharan African nation experiences a severe crisis or is tired of Keynesian economics after running into a severe bust, they would ask for advice. I wouldn't go to them and say, "pray on it" because I don't think that's effective in this scenario. In this sense, I dismiss prayer and religious beliefs, although such attitudes or mindsets can be useful in implementing change and should be factored in.
4. We'll probably disagree on which rights are bestowed to all humans, but I see what you mean now.
5. Let's skip past the "born equal" argument, and move to the "should be treated equal" argument. Would you say that in the latter argument, god is also involved in this? And to what degree (e.g. God-based ethics)?
6. I like to play around. Emoticons can't express my intentions well enough.

[john9blue]

John, you got my point exactly. Two can play at the dismissing game. I really do try to discuss the topics at hand, which was human worth and I gave a genuine answer to Stalin as to why I believe it "because God says so". I can back up this belief with logic, ect. but it boils down to that answer. And no the flying monkey god does not count in my opinion and I have looked into many positions and found them unable to properly explain human experience. Anyway, Stalin how about you? Why should humans even be considered as having any worth? I say that it is because I believe that my God (and of course it is my God, just as whatever rational system you use is yours) has so ordered it. If you have a problem with that then lets go at it.

puppydog, I have two observations:
1. Now you are talking as if you actually want to debate stuff. A couple of posts ago when you wrote:

that's what happens when you give people's opinions a modicum of respect. they become more willing to debate and even change them. that's why people who don't do this disgust me.

[BigBallinStalin]

John, you got my point exactly. Two can play at the dismissing game. I really do try to discuss the topics at hand, which was human worth and I gave a genuine answer to Stalin as to why I believe it "because God says so". I can back up this belief with logic, ect. but it boils down to that answer. And no the flying monkey god does not count in my opinion and I have looked into many positions and found them unable to properly explain human experience. Anyway, Stalin how about you? Why should humans even be considered as having any worth? I say that it is because I believe that my God (and of course it is my God, just as whatever rational system you use is yours) has so ordered it. If you have a problem with that then lets go at it.

puppydog, I have two observations:
1. Now you are talking as if you actually want to debate stuff. A couple of posts ago when you wrote:

that's what happens when you give people's opinions a modicum of respect. they become more willing to debate and even change them. that's why people who don't do this disgust me.

What is the acceptable minimum quantity of respect before one hits your disgust-o meter?

[Symmetry]

John, you got my point exactly. Two can play at the dismissing game. I really do try to discuss the topics at hand, which was human worth and I gave a genuine answer to Stalin as to why I believe it "because God says so". I can back up this belief with logic, ect. but it boils down to that answer. And no the flying monkey god does not count in my opinion and I have looked into many positions and found them unable to properly explain human experience. Anyway, Stalin how about you? Why should humans even be considered as having any worth? I say that it is because I believe that my God (and of course it is my God, just as whatever rational system you use is yours) has so ordered it. If you have a problem with that then lets go at it.

puppydog, I have two observations:
1. Now you are talking as if you actually want to debate stuff. A couple of posts ago when you wrote:

that's what happens when you give people's opinions a modicum of respect. they become more willing to debate and even change them. that's why people who don't do this disgust me.

What is the acceptable minimum quantity of respect before one hits your disgust-o meter?

I hit mine early with the one two combo of misunderstanding what theses are and what they do, combined with the misspelling of "theses". I have a low threshold nowadays.