Human worth

[Haggis_McMutton]

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.

[Symmetry]

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?

You might misinterpret it as a an accusation of plagiarism, or a hate campaign against you if I answered. I can't be doing with another of your hissy fits.

[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.

Wow man, you're pretty deep.

You too lol.

[BigBallinStalin]

It really depends on the means of killing 4000 tigers. That's a lot of tigers. Would you have to hunt each one in a jungle? Would they be penned up in little cells and all you had to do was crack their skulls with a large, comically painted, wooden mallet? After killing a tiger, would you have to eat it? And after killing it, could you get it skinned and have its fur sold at a fair price? Would the authorities then pursue you? Would your face be painted on billboards on every country: Gillipig, Tiger Murderer?


These are the questions that matter.

[Phatscotty]

One is only as compassionate as their options allow

-Phatscotty

[john9blue]

gonna answer my question sym?

You might misinterpret it as a an accusation of plagiarism, or a hate campaign against you if I answered. I can't be doing with another of your hissy fits.

i read this as "symmetry is afraid of his latest hateful and incorrect post being identified as such, like his previous ones have been"

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Except, its the false truth. Because the things that cause tigers to die are also impacting humans.

We can probably live without tigers, but we cannot live in the conditions that result in millions of species dying off without major consequences. Preserving tigers is not about denying human worth, it is about affirming it.

And... the real bottom truth is that while we may be able to live without tigers, we don't know which species form the keystone, which species or group of species demise really will impact us directly. We understand too little of the world around to make those decisinos with intelligence.

[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.

Except, its the false truth. Because the things that cause tigers to die are also impacting humans.

We can probably live without tigers, but we cannot live in the conditions that result in millions of species dying off without major consequences. Preserving tigers is not about denying human worth, it is about affirming it.

And... the real bottom truth is that while we may be able to live without tigers, we don't know which species form the keystone, which species or group of species demise really will impact us directly. We understand too little of the world around to make those decisinos with intelligence.

It's genreally accepted that animals higher up in the food chain are less important to the chain than those lower down. If you remove the top predators, tigers, lions, sharks, humans. The chain won't be very affected. If you however remove an animal further down in the food chain, like different sort of insects for example, it can have a very large influence on many different types of animals.
I forgot what you were asking lol. Anyway I hope there's some sort of response to your post in here.

[The Bison King]

One is only as compassionate as their options allow

-Phatscotty

WOW MAN, YOU'RE PRETTY DEEP

Totally deep enough to quote yourself like you're someone anyone gives a shit about. When people talk about human worth, they're really just comparing everyone else to you.

[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.

Except, its the false truth. Because the things that cause tigers to die are also impacting humans.

We can probably live without tigers, but we cannot live in the conditions that result in millions of species dying off without major consequences. Preserving tigers is not about denying human worth, it is about affirming it.

And... the real bottom truth is that while we may be able to live without tigers, we don't know which species form the keystone, which species or group of species demise really will impact us directly. We understand too little of the world around to make those decisinos with intelligence.

It's genreally accepted that animals higher up in the food chain are less important to the chain than those lower down. If you remove the top predators, tigers, lions, sharks, humans. The chain won't be very affected. If you however remove an animal further down in the food chain, like different sort of insects for example, it can have a very large influence on many different types of animals.
I forgot what you were asking lol. Anyway I hope there's some sort of response to your post in here.

So which is it? Are humans more important that tigers because you care about your loved ones, or are humans less important that tigers because we're higher up on the food chain?

Using this logic humans are the very least important animal in the eyes of our planets survival. In fact a human mass extinction would probably be the best thing for the planet. It doesn't matter how you feel about your loved ones when you take a step back and look at things on a global scale.

[john9blue]

WOW MAN, YOU'RE PRETTY DEEP

- bison king

[/]

It's genreally accepted that animals higher up in the food chain are less important to the chain than those lower down. If you remove the top predators, tigers, lions, sharks, humans. The chain won't be very affected. If you however remove an animal further down in the food chain, like different sort of insects for example, it can have a very large influence on many different types of animals.
I forgot what you were asking lol. Anyway I hope there's some sort of response to your post in here.

Actually no, the balance is upset by losing top predators. The overfishing of sharks is causing booms in stingrays, poisonous jellyfish and all other kinds of other things more deadly than Jaws.
dangit, now I have to turn this into something on topic.
Um, speaking of... eating things, I think that the utilitarian philosophy of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few is exemplified by the common acceptance of cannibalism in times of crisis.
Thus human worth is often considered a quantity over quality.

[Lootifer]

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?

Because its making the effort that counts.

Each incremental step in the "right" direction is one small improvement (subjectively speaking of course).

[xeno]

Can we all atleast agree gilipig is a nasty fat chick fu.cker

[Symmetry]

It's genreally accepted that animals higher up in the food chain are less important to the chain than those lower down.

Why do we insist that all humans are worth equally much when that obviously isn't the case?... Hobos are worth less than nothing.

ITT Gillipig admits to eating homeless people.

[rdsrds2120]

It's genreally accepted that animals higher up in the food chain are less important to the chain than those lower down. If you remove the top predators, tigers, lions, sharks, humans. The chain won't be very affected. If you however remove an animal further down in the food chain, like different sort of insects for example, it can have a very large influence on many different types of animals.
I forgot what you were asking lol. Anyway I hope there's some sort of response to your post in here.

Actually no, the balance is upset by losing top predators. The overfishing of sharks is causing booms in stingrays, poisonous jellyfish and all other kinds of other things more deadly than Jaws.
dangit, now I have to turn this into something on topic.
Um, speaking of... eating things, I think that the utilitarian philosophy of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few is exemplified by the common acceptance of cannibalism in times of crisis.
Thus human worth is often considered a quantity over quality.

Actually, you're both right. Which would be more detrimental to a food-web is based on the even-odd theory of food chains. For example, any food chain with 3 (extremely low, but an odd number nonetheless) is more likely to be more adversely affected by the top predator disappearing (chain 2 gets really big, then devours chain link 3, which leads to 2's extinction if they were to run completely out of food, but this is usually unlikely) than a secondary consumer in an even food chain (after all, a food chain with an even number of links is really just an odd chain with another on top). These phenomena are known as bottom-up and top-down Trophic Cascades, respectively.

And yeah, humans suck.

#fightforthetigers2012

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Except, its the false truth. Because the things that cause tigers to die are also impacting humans.

We can probably live without tigers, but we cannot live in the conditions that result in millions of species dying off without major consequences. Preserving tigers is not about denying human worth, it is about affirming it.

And... the real bottom truth is that while we may be able to live without tigers, we don't know which species form the keystone, which species or group of species demise really will impact us directly. We understand too little of the world around to make those decisinos with intelligence.

It's genreally accepted that animals higher up in the food chain are less important to the chain than those lower down. If you remove the top predators, tigers, lions, sharks, humans. The chain won't be very affected. If you however remove an animal further down in the food chain, like different sort of insects for example, it can have a very large influence on many different types of animals. .

Not sure where you got the idea that its OK to take things at the top of the food chain. Your ideas are very old-fashioned and extremely incorrect.

Here is one brief article on it. http://www.livescience.com/4171-top-pre ... shows.html

I quote just the intro here, though the article is short:

Top-level predators strike fear in the hearts of the animals they stalk. But when a deer is being mauled by a wolf, at least it can know that it's giving its life for the greater good.

A new study reveals how ecosystems crumble without the presence of top predators be keeping populations of key species from growing too large. It also provides a cautionary lesson to humans, who often remove top predators from the food chain, setting off an eventual collapse.

The study is detailed in the July 20 issue of the journal Nature.

[PLAYER57832]

It's genreally accepted that animals higher up in the food chain are less important to the chain than those lower down. If you remove the top predators, tigers, lions, sharks, humans. The chain won't be very affected. If you however remove an animal further down in the food chain, like different sort of insects for example, it can have a very large influence on many different types of animals.
I forgot what you were asking lol. Anyway I hope there's some sort of response to your post in here.

Actually no, the balance is upset by losing top predators. The overfishing of sharks is causing booms in stingrays, poisonous jellyfish and all other kinds of other things more deadly than Jaws.
dangit, now I have to turn this into something on topic.
Um, speaking of... eating things, I think that the utilitarian philosophy of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few is exemplified by the common acceptance of cannibalism in times of crisis.
Thus human worth is often considered a quantity over quality.

Actually, you're both right. Which would be more detrimental to a food-web is based on the even-odd theory of food chains. For example, any food chain with 3 (extremely low, but an odd number nonetheless) is more likely to be more adversely affected by the top predator disappearing (chain 2 gets really big, then devours chain link 3, which leads to 2's extinction if they were to run completely out of food, but this is usually unlikely) than a secondary consumer in an even food chain (after all, a food chain with an even number of links is really just an odd chain with another on top). These phenomena are known as bottom-up and top-down Trophic Cascades, respectively.

Its really a LOT more complicated than that, but you do show an above-average understanding of natural systems.

[rdsrds2120]

It's genreally accepted that animals higher up in the food chain are less important to the chain than those lower down. If you remove the top predators, tigers, lions, sharks, humans. The chain won't be very affected. If you however remove an animal further down in the food chain, like different sort of insects for example, it can have a very large influence on many different types of animals.
I forgot what you were asking lol. Anyway I hope there's some sort of response to your post in here.

Actually no, the balance is upset by losing top predators. The overfishing of sharks is causing booms in stingrays, poisonous jellyfish and all other kinds of other things more deadly than Jaws.
dangit, now I have to turn this into something on topic.
Um, speaking of... eating things, I think that the utilitarian philosophy of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few is exemplified by the common acceptance of cannibalism in times of crisis.
Thus human worth is often considered a quantity over quality.

Actually, you're both right. Which would be more detrimental to a food-web is based on the even-odd theory of food chains. For example, any food chain with 3 (extremely low, but an odd number nonetheless) is more likely to be more adversely affected by the top predator disappearing (chain 2 gets really big, then devours chain link 3, which leads to 2's extinction if they were to run completely out of food, but this is usually unlikely) than a secondary consumer in an even food chain (after all, a food chain with an even number of links is really just an odd chain with another on top). These phenomena are known as bottom-up and top-down Trophic Cascades, respectively.

Its really a LOT more complicated than that, but you do show an above-average understanding of natural systems.

It certainly is, but I was in no way planning on discussing it in further length in this thread. It's certainly not nearly as quantifiable as I put it, but I'm not going to go into the intricacies of Trophic Cascades in a thread about human worth, lol.

-rd

[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.

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?

BBS, you disappoint me. The OP is, as far as I read it, annoyed at the people who say things like "All men are equal" and no one who ever said anything along these lines was referring to their ability to perform a specific task. If you engineer a situation in which I have to choose people based upon their abilities then I will of course pick one (I will not be betting on an 8-way tie in the 100m olympic finals this year) and if you want to call that judging someone on what value they have then fine, but that is not what I meant.

As for what is wrong with viewing someone as a resource, I think it is the position of a philistine.

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.

Even if you are right it is better to try and be morally just and fail than to try and be unjust and succeed.

[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?

BBS, you disappoint me. The OP is, as far as I read it, annoyed at the people who say things like "All men are equal" and no one who ever said anything along these lines was referring to their ability to perform a specific task. If you engineer a situation in which I have to choose people based upon their abilities then I will of course pick one (I will not be betting on an 8-way tie in the 100m olympic finals this year) and if you want to call that judging someone on what value they have then fine, but that is not what I meant.

As for what is wrong with viewing someone as a resource, I think it is the position of a philistine.

Well, where do you think the value of a human comes from? That's why I mention productivity.

I've already been through this subjective value argument, and no one seems to be able to muster anything in favor of objective value. Then they shift down to "treating people the same," but that argument falls apart when you mention if they treat their best friends the exact same as North Koreans. Eventually, the argument shrinks to "people have a minimal value with the exception of murderers and really no good-niks" which to me is acceptable but doesn't really mean much.

You can call people philistines all you want, but that's still not a logical argument.

[Woodruff]

Even if you are right it is better to try and be morally just and fail than to try and be unjust and succeed.

Indeed.

[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.

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?

BBS, you disappoint me. The OP is, as far as I read it, annoyed at the people who say things like "All men are equal" and no one who ever said anything along these lines was referring to their ability to perform a specific task. If you engineer a situation in which I have to choose people based upon their abilities then I will of course pick one (I will not be betting on an 8-way tie in the 100m olympic finals this year) and if you want to call that judging someone on what value they have then fine, but that is not what I meant.

As for what is wrong with viewing someone as a resource, I think it is the position of a philistine.

Well, where do you think the value of a human comes from? That's why I mention productivity.

I've already been through this subjective value argument, and no one seems to be able to muster anything in favor of objective value. Then they shift down to "treating people the same," but that argument falls apart when you mention if they treat their best friends the exact same as North Koreans. Eventually, the argument shrinks to "people have a minimal value with the exception of murderers and really no good-niks" which to me is acceptable but doesn't really mean much.

You can call people philistines all you want, but that's still not a logical argument.

Like I said, I don't want to view someone in terms of what value they have. Basically the whole thread is a bullshit excuse to justify poor treatment of other humans.

Of course we will treat people differently, it would be impractical to do otherwise. So I agree with you (I think) in that it is objective value that we are considering and in my opinion, objectively there is no reason why one person is better than another.

[BigBallinStalin]

Like I said, I don't want to view someone in terms of what value they have. Basically the whole thread is a bullshit excuse to justify poor treatment of other humans.

Not really, at least not from the arguments I've been making.

Simply because people value others subjectively, it doesn't follow that they are justified in treating them however they wish.

...in my opinion, objectively there is no reason why one person is better than another.

So, to be logically consistent, you'd have to agree that a child molester who has raped and killed three young boys and two puppies is just as good as Mother Theresa. How about that?

[pmchugh]

Like I said, I don't want to view someone in terms of what value they have. Basically the whole thread is a bullshit excuse to justify poor treatment of other humans.

Not really, at least not from the arguments I've been making.

Simply because people value others subjectively, it doesn't follow that they are justified in treating them however they wish.

...in my opinion, objectively there is no reason why one person is better than another.

So, to be logically consistent, you'd have to agree that a child molester who has raped and killed three young boys and two puppies is just as good as Mother Theresa. How about that?

Mother Theresa is not exactly a saint (well not yet anyway) but seriously, she was a bit nutty at least if Hitch is to be believed. As for your other character, I am guessing there was more of a serious back story in that no ordinarily minded human would do that. They are a mammal born into a deterministic world and they behave in accordance with the way they were made, objectively they are just a survival machine all the same as Mother Theresa.

You may disagree with me, but its OK you were always going to and I love you all the same big balls.

p.s. the first comment was aimed at OP more than you. I understand where you are coming from, but I reject the premise of evaluating people at all in terms of some good or evil. Humans are so much more, and yet so much less.

p.p.s I am probably talking shit, but its 630am and it makes perfect sense to me.