Page 1 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

21 Apr 2013, 3:35 pm

daydreamer84 wrote:
What about some people with severe or profound intellectual disabilities?

leejosepho wrote:
Where other animals might simply "cull the herd", we show compassion and care for them...and thus have their lives contributed to life for all.


Well, does that mean that if you get right down to the life of a person with a profound intellectual disability who can't speak is worth less than the life of a person with an average IQ? Do we just keep them alive and have them contribute what they can because of human compassion and because our society can afford to do it...we've gotten to a point in human societies at which this is possible? So , to be really dramatic, if it came down to a choice of saving a person A or person B and person B had a profound intellectual disability whereas person A were intelligent (as we measure and define it) but we knew nothing else about person A and B it would be right to save person A over person B?

Edit: I find the above idea really disturbing.



NewDawn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 306
Location: Netherlands

21 Apr 2013, 3:55 pm

daydreamer84 wrote:
I don't think bacterial life is sacred.


Are you sure? Please reconsider after the following.

In every single cell of our body lives a prokaryot. A 'bacterium' if you will, although it's so specialized living in symbiosis with the eukaryotic cell that the only way we can infer that it is a prokaryot is from its circular DNA.. We call it an 'organel' (mitochondrion). Without it, we would die within seconds. It delivers the energy in the form of a high energy molecule (ATP) that powers EVERY process in our body.

Bacteria live on our skin and protect us from harmfull invaders. Bacteria live in our gut to help us digest our food and supply us with vitamin K which humans can't make themselves. That's not all. The plants and animals we eat, all depend on bacteria. Without bacteria nothing would decay. Decay isn't 'nice', but it's necessary. It's true that some bacteria are very harmfull for us, and I'd rather see them gone from the face of the Earth too. But the truth is that the vast majority of bacteria are very usefull little critters. I don't like to use the term 'sacred' (what does that mean outside of the context of religion?), but I certainly have a great deal of respect for the humble prokaryot. And besides, they were here first. 1.7 billion years before us eukaryots.



Last edited by NewDawn on 21 Apr 2013, 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

21 Apr 2013, 4:04 pm

NewDawn wrote:
daydreamer84 wrote:
I don't think bacterial life is sacred.


Are you sure? Please reconsider after the following.

In every single cell of our body lives a prokaryot. A 'bacterium' if you will, although it's so specialized living in symbiosis with the eukaryotic cell that the only way we can infer that it is a prokaryot is from its circular DNA.. We call it an 'organel' (mitochondrion). Without it, we would die within seconds. It delivers the energy in the form of a high energy molecule (ATP) that powers EVERY process in our body.

Bacteria live on our skin and protect us from harmfull invaders. Bacteria live in our gut to help our digest your food and supply us with vitamin K which humans can't make themselves. That's not all. The plants and animals we eat, all depend on bacteria. Without bacteria nothing would decay. Decay isn't 'nice', but it's necessary. It's true that some bacteria are very harmfull for us, and I'd rather see them gone from the face of the Earth too. But the truth is that the vast majority of bacteria are very usefull little critters. I don't like to use the term 'sacred' (what does that mean outside of the context of religion?), but I certainly have a great deal of respect for the humble prokaryot. And besides, they were here first. 1.7 billion years before us eukaryots.


Okay if not sacred then fundamentally valuable. What makes life valuable for its own sake if anything does?

If bacteria is useful to me or other organisms I want to keep alive I feel it should be preserved. If bacteria is harmful to me or to another complex organism that I want to keep alive then I will destroy it without even a thought. It has no value (to me anyway) in and of itself. Do human beings? I believe we do but maybe I'm just deluding myself.

Prokaryotes are certainly resilient.....they were here first and for a billion years before us. lol. I don't think that makes them valuable though.



Last edited by daydreamer84 on 21 Apr 2013, 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

21 Apr 2013, 4:11 pm

daydreamer84 wrote:
daydreamer84 wrote:
What about some people with severe or profound intellectual disabilities?

leejosepho wrote:
Where other animals might simply "cull the herd", we show compassion and care for them...and thus have their lives contributed to life for all.


Well, does that mean that if you get right down to the life of a person with a profound intellectual disability who can't speak is worth less than the life of a person with an average IQ?

No, and I say that while refusing to value one human life over another.

Quote:
Do we just keep them alive and have them contribute what they can...

In some cases, their only "contribution" might be our opportunity to serve them at our own expense and without reciprocation or reward.

Quote:
Do we just keep them alive...because of human compassion...

That could be a good reason.

Quote:
Do we just keep them alive...because our society can afford to do it...

At least in theory, I would rather die together while sharing insufficient rations than to live at the expense of another against his or her own will...and I hope I never have to sort all of that out in any real-life situation.

Quote:
...we've gotten to a point in human societies at which this is possible?

Things like the Biodiversity Treaty of a couple of decades ago would have us believe that is not possible, but I refuse to consider the reduction of human life a solution to any of our global troubles.

Quote:
So, to be really dramatic, if it came down to a choice of saving a person A or person B and person B had a profound intellectual disability whereas person A were intelligent (as we measure and define it) but we knew nothing else about person A and B it would be right to save person A over person B?

I would say we should never value either over the other and that we should all live or die together...and I say that without getting into the tough decisions to be made by the able-bodied few with victims suffering and dying all around them following some kind of disaster or devastation.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

21 Apr 2013, 4:21 pm

leejosepho wrote:
daydreamer84 wrote:
daydreamer84 wrote:
What about some people with severe or profound intellectual disabilities?

leejosepho wrote:
Where other animals might simply "cull the herd", we show compassion and care for them...and thus have their lives contributed to life for all.


Well, does that mean that if you get right down to the life of a person with a profound intellectual disability who can't speak is worth less than the life of a person with an average IQ?

No, and I say that while refusing to value one human life over another.

Quote:
Do we just keep them alive and have them contribute what they can...

In some cases, their only "contribution" might be our opportunity to serve them at our own expense and without reciprocation or reward.

Quote:
Do we just keep them alive...because of human compassion...

That could be a good reason.

Quote:
Do we just keep them alive...because our society can afford to do it...

At least in theory, I would rather die together while sharing insufficient rations than to live at the expense of another against his or her own will...and I hope I never have to sort all of that out in any real-life situation.

Quote:
...we've gotten to a point in human societies at which this is possible?

Things like the Biodiversity Treaty of a couple of decades ago would have us believe that is not possible, but I refuse to consider the reduction of human life a solution to any of our global troubles.

Quote:
So, to be really dramatic, if it came down to a choice of saving a person A or person B and person B had a profound intellectual disability whereas person A were intelligent (as we measure and define it) but we knew nothing else about person A and B it would be right to save person A over person B?

I would say we should never value either over the other and that we should all live or die together...and I say that without getting into the tough decisions to be made by the able-bodied few with victims suffering and dying all around them following some kind of disaster or devastation.


Well ,this is the way I'd like to see the world and what I'd like to believe. This would mean there is something inherently valuable about human life , I suppose. We should live and die together but I suppose you wouldn't think twice about saving a human over a dog or a cow or a worm if it came down to it? I wouldn't. Does thinking this way mean that what makes human life valuable is something separable from intelligence?



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

21 Apr 2013, 5:12 pm

daydreamer84 wrote:
...
Well, this is the way I'd like to see the world and what I'd like to believe. This would mean there is something inherently valuable about human life, I suppose.


Looking just a bit beyond that, I would say there is value in placing equal value in human life...and at the very least because that can help keep us from valuing our own lives more highly than we might otherwise value the lives of others.

Quote:
We should live and die together, but I suppose you wouldn't think twice about saving a human over a dog or a cow or a worm if it came down to it? I wouldn't. Does thinking this way mean that what makes human life valuable is something separable from intelligence?

Rhetorically: Can pears be more valuable than oranges? How about a snake and an apple? I do not eat pork, but the pig and the chicken play different roles in relation to humans eating bacon and eggs.

So no, I believe it would be arrogant to view intelligence as a deciding factor. Where evolutionists might say "natural selection" decides value and others might say value comes from "creative design" or by mandate or whatever, the bottom line is that mere dominion does not establish any right or authority in judgements of value.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

21 Apr 2013, 5:28 pm

daydreamer84 wrote:

So we're just gene propagation machines but because we are self aware and conscious due to higher brain functions we think of human life as valuable? It's not really...it's just in our self interest to believe that and preserve our existence?


Pretty much.

Quote:
A bleak world view but maybe the truth.


I don't find it the least bit bleak.

Quote:
Do you believe in altruism or love?


As bio-chemical processes in the brain, sure. As social primates, humans have evolved the capacity for both of these things so that we can live together in societies. Love, empathy, compassion, and sharing are just as much a part of our genetic heritage as violence, competition, and war.

Quote:
So you think the capacity for these things makes life any more valuable?


Not in any objective sense. Of course, we can always assign value to life.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

21 Apr 2013, 5:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Life is something we can easily destroy be cannot make. Perhaps we should be very careful of how much and what kind of life we destroy.

Well, except that new human life can easily be made (see overpopulation)


What makes life sacred and valuable? well, as George Carlin said: "It's a self serving, man made BS story"



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

21 Apr 2013, 5:44 pm

blunnet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Life is something we can easily destroy be cannot make. Perhaps we should be very careful of how much and what kind of life we destroy.

Well, except that new human life can easily be made (see overpopulation)


What makes life sacred and valuable? well, as George Carlin said: "It's a self serving, man made BS story"


8)


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Mike1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 710

21 Apr 2013, 7:11 pm

Most animals don't have as much of a reason to live as most humans, so animals generally don't lose as much when they die as humans do. A lot of wild animals lead hard lives, in which their only goals are to not starve or be eaten. Those animals really only lose the burden of meeting their survival needs when they die. Some animals, like deer, are spared from dying in more unpleasant ways later in life when they get shot and killed by hunters, like being ripped apart by coyotes or slowly starving to death. They would most likely not survive long enough to die from old age. Nature is cruel, and humans can't change that. Wild animals don't enjoy the luxury of being safe from harm like most humans do. They also don't usually enjoy having relationships with very many other members of their species. The death of a human can make entire communities grieve, whereas the death of a wild animal only makes small numbers of other animals of their species grieve, if any grieve at all.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Apr 2013, 7:42 pm

blunnet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Life is something we can easily destroy be cannot make. Perhaps we should be very careful of how much and what kind of life we destroy.

Well, except that new human life can easily be made (see overpopulation)


"


Human really do not make new life in the sense of craft. They toss seeds in the soil and through purely natural processes they germinate.

ruveyn



daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

21 Apr 2013, 10:03 pm

Thanks for the replies everyone. :) I am reading them through. I'm just not responding because I don't have a fully formed opinion about this which is why I'm posing all these questions.



daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

21 Apr 2013, 10:06 pm

Mike1 wrote:
Most animals don't have as much of a reason to live as most humans, so animals generally don't lose as much when they die as humans do. A lot of wild animals lead hard lives, in which their only goals are to not starve or be eaten. Those animals really only lose the burden of meeting their survival needs when they die. Some animals, like deer, are spared from dying in more unpleasant ways later in life when they get shot and killed by hunters, like being ripped apart by coyotes or slowly starving to death. They would most likely not survive long enough to die from old age. Nature is cruel, and humans can't change that. Wild animals don't enjoy the luxury of being safe from harm like most humans do. They also don't usually enjoy having relationships with very many other members of their species. The death of a human can make entire communities grieve, whereas the death of a wild animal only makes small numbers of other animals of their species grieve, if any grieve at all.


That's an interesting perspective. The potential pleasure an individual can get from life or the potential for richness in his experience of life as well what the individual means to others of his species is what makes him valuable. That could be a part of it.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

21 Apr 2013, 11:03 pm

Quote:
What makes life sacred or valuable?

if there were no humans, everything would go to rack and ruin. vehicles would get dirtier and dirtier. dust would pile up in houses and buildings. everyone's lawns would become overgrown until they were in a hideous condition. just imagine what state the roads would be in with no one to maintain them?



NewDawn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 306
Location: Netherlands

22 Apr 2013, 5:17 am

I'd say our sense of value is inborn. When thinking about it, I can't quite point to anything specific, other than that I feel I and my fellow humans are valuable and more so than other species. It's not our intellectual capacities, but it might have to do with our level of awareness of the world. We are not only self-aware, but also death aware. Perhaps chimps, bonobos, gorillas and elephants are too, but not as much as we. They don't burry their dead with ritual. They do seem to mourn them and even other species they've grown attached to, as can be seen in this video of Koko the gorilla who has learned some sign language.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg[/youtube]

We are a social species and can't survive on our own. Our children take a really long time to grow into adulthood and are completely helpless at birth. We are simply born with the instinct to protect and help each other. That can't work if we don't have an inborn feeling of value. We are not unique in this. Most mammals, some reptiles and many birds will fiercely protect their young. It seems that the higher the investment of having progeny, the more protective a species is.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

22 Apr 2013, 5:34 am

b9 wrote:
if there were no humans, everything would go to rack and ruin. vehicles would get dirtier and dirtier. dust would pile up in houses and buildings. everyone's lawns would become overgrown until they were in a hideous condition. just imagine what state the roads would be in with no one to maintain them?

Yes, and now even we cannot keep our concrete jungle well-maintained.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================