Human worth

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Hm, I agree that almost everyone has the means to provide something which at least one person would find valuable; therefore, "[almost] everyone has some minimum worth." But there's some problems with this: if I make a knife, and someone values me as a knife maker, this is all well and good. But what if my customer stabs someone with the knife I recently sold him? Would I become of lesser value (to everyone)?

And going on my last question, your concern with #2 is unfounded because value isn't decided ultimately by objective 3rd party. For example, when I ask "would I become of lesser value to... society? or to a specific group? or my tribe?," then I start to balk at "society" but less so at "my tribe."

I disagree that finding an objective value, or having some way of measuring objective value, is possible because of the 'fallacy' of interpersonal comparisons of utility, so I disagree with the (restrained) utilitarianism tid-bits. The practicality of utilitarianism is limited by its* scope of judging value across some amount of people (the world, society, a province, a city, some cafe, your tribe/community, or your family).

*(To be clear, this is false anthropomorphism. Utilitarianism doesn't judge, nor does society, for they are not single decision-making entities. For matters within a family, then a utilitarian approach becomes more practical; however, utilitarianism is only troublesome without other concepts, i.e. respecting private property (your body, as well), not initiating violence without good cause, etc.)

[john9blue]

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" ???

my position is that it's generally a good idea to act as if one person's life carries the same value as another person's life (provided they are roughly the same age), even though i don't believe that anyone's objective worth is the same as anyone else's. it is also a good idea to realize that our value judgments about other human beings is extremely error-prone.

this is because our knowledge of the ultimate worth of a human being is extraordinarily limited. even an extremely influential and well-known example (like adolf hitler) is difficult to discern. did he have a very low worth because he caused the murder of millions? did he have an extremely high worth because he forced technological progress during the war effort? does killing people even reduce worth, and creating technological progress even increase worth? who knows?

how about the unknown proto-human who first discovered how to control fire? they are arguably the most influential individual in human history. but did they accelerate the eventual destruction of planet earth by technologically advanced humans? and if so, is this a good or bad thing for any other alien species that might be out there in the universe?

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."

but why would be bother making value judgments if objective value didn't exist? why would we make an attempt to understand a fundamental characteristic of other people if that characteristic didn't exist? what if the objective value of a person is the sum of their subjective values in the minds of other people?

[Symmetry]

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

my position is that it's generally a good idea to act as if one person's life carries the same value as another person's life (provided they are roughly the same age), even though i don't believe that anyone's objective worth is the same as anyone else's. it is also a good idea to realize that our value judgments about other human beings is extremely error-prone.

Your "position" isn't a position. It's an error prone, mealy mouthed way of saying "I don't know, I go by what people tell me".

[daddy1gringo]

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?

I think you are confusing two different things: one being the ideal for which we strive and the other being what we put into practice.

Another concept that I think you are missing is that of equality or inequality in differing respects. J9b and BBS have touched on this a little. It makes me think of Lincoln's statement during the Douglas debates to the effect that although "the negro" was not equal to white people in all respects, he must be equal in his rights under the law to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Leaving aside the fact that Lincoln, being like all of us a product of his time was wrong about real and complete equality, there is something to be learned from the idea of asking "equal with regard to what?"

show

If I understand J9b right, I think I agree with him. I would put it this way: that although as individuals we do make judgments valuing some people more than others,and those judgments may or may not be right, the way we structure our laws has to forgo those judgments and at least strive to treat all human beings as equal.

[john9blue]

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

my position is that it's generally a good idea to act as if one person's life carries the same value as another person's life (provided they are roughly the same age), even though i don't believe that anyone's objective worth is the same as anyone else's. it is also a good idea to realize that our value judgments about other human beings is extremely error-prone.

Your "position" isn't a position. It's an error prone, mealy mouthed way of saying "I don't know, I go by what people tell me".

what makes you think i go by what other people tell me?

[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?

I think you are confusing two different things: one being the ideal for which we strive and the other being what we put into practice.

Another concept that I think you are missing is that of equality or inequality in differing respects. J9b and BBS have touched on this a little. It makes me think of Lincoln's statement during the Douglas debates to the effect that although "the negro" was not equal to white people in all respects, he must be equal in his rights under the law to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Leaving aside the fact that Lincoln, being like all of us a product of his time was wrong about real and complete equality, there is something to be learned from the idea of asking "equal with regard to what?"

show

If I understand J9b right, I think I agree with him. I would put it this way: that although as individuals we do make judgments valuing some people more than others,and those judgments may or may not be right, the way we structure our laws has to forgo those judgments and at least strive to treat all human beings as equal.

IIRC, john wasn't making an argument in favor of equality before the law, which to me sounds like a good idea.

[john9blue]

IIRC, john wasn't making an argument in favor of equality before the law, which to me sounds like a good idea.

elaborate? if i wanted people to be treated with equal worth by individuals, why wouldn't i want that from the government?

[BigBallinStalin]

IIRC, john wasn't making an argument in favor of equality before the law, which to me sounds like a good idea.

elaborate? if i wanted people to be treated with equal worth by individuals, why wouldn't i want that from the government?

Who knows, john. It never entered the discussion until now. Honestly, your position(s) is a bit difficult to follow ITT.

[pmchugh]

Why are people so hung up on what "value" something has? It seems sad to view other people as resources for your own benefit or for the benefit of your society.

[Symmetry]

IIRC, john wasn't making an argument in favor of equality before the law, which to me sounds like a good idea.

elaborate? if i wanted people to be treated with equal worth by individuals, why wouldn't i want that from the government?

Who knows, john. It never entered the discussion until now. Honestly, your position(s) is a bit difficult to follow ITT.

A more pleasant way to put the problems with John's position(s) than I did.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Why are people so hung up on what "value" something has? It seems sad to view other people as resources for your own benefit or for the benefit of your society.

Because in a world where your time is finite, everything has value accordingly.

-TG

[Gillipig]

Why are people so hung up on what "value" something has? It seems sad to view other people as resources for your own benefit or for the benefit of your society.

That's simply how humans work. call it sad or unfortunate if you wish. I look at it as inevitable and nobodys fault. What we can't do anything about isn't our fault is it?

[BigBallinStalin]

Why are people so hung up on what "value" something has? It seems sad to view other people as resources for your own benefit or for the benefit of your society.

What's wrong with providing others with something of value--produced by the resources available?


What's sad is having the potential to convert one's resources into something valuable, but instead one commits suicide.

[john9blue]

A more pleasant way to put the problems with John's position(s) than I did.

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

my position is that it's generally a good idea to act as if one person's life carries the same value as another person's life (provided they are roughly the same age), even though i don't believe that anyone's objective worth is the same as anyone else's. it is also a good idea to realize that our value judgments about other human beings is extremely error-prone.

Your "position" isn't a position. It's an error prone, mealy mouthed way of saying "I don't know, I go by what people tell me".

what makes you think i go by what other people tell me?

gonna answer my question sym?

[/]

There are several different factors to take into account, but really it's all quite arbitrary in my opinion, some people would save their dog before everyone else’s favorite movie star, does it mean there is any initial value to take into account, or just a selfish whim?

There's a test of values towards other that seems relevant.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/mo ... fault.aspx

[BigBallinStalin]

There are several different factors to take into account, but really it's all quite arbitrary in my opinion, some people would save their dog before everyone else’s favorite movie star, does it mean there is any initial value to take into account, or just a selfish whim?

There's a test of values towards other that seems relevant.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/mo ... fault.aspx

They need a "it depends" option. E.G.

#2, brother commits crime, turn him in?

It depends on the crime itself (then the law, how the law was formed, and how that relates to the informal rules), who he committed a crime against, and why.



Jeez, this quiz is really strong about "moral obligation." The way it frames the effects would imply that saying "No obligation" = "morally wrong" when that isn't necessarily the case.

Doesn't moral obligation seem to resemble a "moral absolute"?

[BigBallinStalin]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 62%

What Does This Mean?

Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.

But in order for them to gauge how parsimonious you are (or rather, how parsimonious you choose), they have to assume certain principles for you. As you deviate from their principles, then according to them you become less parsimonious.

For example, if my principles are libertarian, then after strictly adhering to the non-aggression axiom, property rights, and negative freedoms, I would be extremely parsimonious.

However, that didn't happen. The test is biased because it already selects certain principles from which you can deviate (what these principles are, it doesn't say). Then, as mentioned earlier, there's the framing effect: "moral obligation: yes or no? No implies wrong/bad."

[/]

Jeez, this quiz is really strong about "moral obligation." The way it frames the effects would imply that saying "No obligation" = "morally wrong" when that isn't necessarily the case.

Doesn't moral obligation seem to resemble a "moral absolute"?

Obligation in some cases, seems to mean, "I must do this, as a rule." or "I could do this, as a favor."
and in other cases means, which is morally better?

I agree it is bad wording, but it doesn't really seem to affect the outcome since the test only really measures "Here vs. there", "many vs. few", "family vs. stranger", and "Act or Omission"

[pmchugh]

Why are people so hung up on what "value" something has? It seems sad to view other people as resources for your own benefit or for the benefit of your society.

What's wrong with providing others with something of value--produced by the resources available?


What's sad is having the potential to convert one's resources into something valuable, but instead one commits suicide.

1. Nothing.
2. I would not want to force a miserable person to live in order that they must provide for me.

Why are people so hung up on what "value" something has? It seems sad to view other people as resources for your own benefit or for the benefit of your society.

That's simply how humans work. call it sad or unfortunate if you wish. I look at it as inevitable and nobodys fault. What we can't do anything about isn't our fault is it?

I think we are all perfectly capable of saying, All people deserve to live and to have the right not to be wronged in equal measure regardless of the "value" that they provide.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why are people so hung up on what "value" something has? It seems sad to view other people as resources for your own benefit or for the benefit of your society.

What's wrong with providing others with something of value--produced by the resources available?


What's sad is having the potential to convert one's resources into something valuable, but instead one commits suicide.

1. Nothing.
2. I would not want to force a miserable person to live in order that they must provide for me.

Sorry, let's back up.

Why is it sad to view someone as a resource for one's own benefit or for society's benefit?

What do you have against resources?


"Hey, this guy's resume is great. I'm sure he could help me tremendously in developing this video game."
Would you say that the speaker was viewing that guy as a resource for his own benefit, (or for society's)? If yes, how is that... sad? He expects to be able to accomplish more, and the other guy can be paid to partake in this endeavor. And... that's somehow sad?

I think we are all perfectly capable of saying, All people deserve to live and to have the right not to be wronged in equal measure regardless of the "value" that they provide.

Yeah, I agree with the negative right to life, i.e. the right not be killed (caveat: self-defense), and equality before the law.... but, is that what you're also saying?

[Gillipig]

Why are people so hung up on what "value" something has? It seems sad to view other people as resources for your own benefit or for the benefit of your society.

That's simply how humans work. call it sad or unfortunate if you wish. I look at it as inevitable and nobodys fault. What we can't do anything about isn't our fault is it?

I think we are all perfectly capable of saying, All people deserve to live and to have the right not to be wronged in equal measure regardless of the "value" that they provide.

Saying it? Of course we are! Living up to it? Not so much!
What's the point in saying that we should do something that we aren't genetically programmed to do? We can't treat everyone as if they have equal worth because it's instinctively against our nature. What's normal to us is to treat others differently depending on what they can offer us, and how close they are related to us. I don't see the point in self delusion.

[The Bison King]

I, for one, think that all human life is equally unimportant. There's around 7 billion people, and like 4,000 tigers. YOU TELL ME WHICH IS MORE VALUABLE!!!!!!!!

[Phatscotty]

Men get arrested.....Dogs get put down

[Gillipig]

I, for one, think that all human life is equally unimportant. There's around 7 billion people, and like 4,000 tigers. YOU TELL ME WHICH IS MORE VALUABLE!!!!!!!!

But your relatives are more important than the average person right? And you wouldn't put the life of a tiger higher than your relatives?
As much as I like tigers and want them to survive......I'd kill every single one of them if it was either them or someone I love. That's what you call the ugly truth I guess.

[The Bison King]

I, for one, think that all human life is equally unimportant. There's around 7 billion people, and like 4,000 tigers. YOU TELL ME WHICH IS MORE VALUABLE!!!!!!!!

But your relatives are more important than the average person right? And you wouldn't put the life of a tiger higher than your relatives?
As much as I like tigers and want them to survive......I'd kill every single one of them if it was either them or someone I love. That's what you call the ugly truth I guess.

Wow man, you're pretty deep.