Israeli assault targets symbols of Hamas power

[mawilson 2,133]

I dunno man - for someone who resolutely defends Israel your reasoning on this "value of human" life point doesn't seem too dissimilar to the reasoning behind the concentration camps.

Perhaps I'm wrong here but it seems to me that you're saying that wealth, education and privilege gives you more of a right to be alive than someone who doesn't have these things.

FWIW, this discussion of human life's worth has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine.

I'm not saying that Israeli lives are worth more - it was another poster that suggested it.

Besides, bombs don't really discriminate - man, woman, rich, poor, murderer or hero

are all targets.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You can't equate everything in nature to some kind of value scale. What's worth more - the Grand Canyon or the great pyramids of Egypt? Nonsensical.

Not the same category, Steven - the pyramids are man-made structures, while the

Grand Canyon is one of Mother Nature's masterpieces.

You can put a value on people's lives. If you had to kill one of two people -

1) a famous artist/composer/scientist or

2) a lazy, drug-addicted bum who hasn't done anything in his life,

who would you kill?

I'll make it easier for you - if you don't kill one of them, I will kill 1,000 people,

starting with your family.

You are confusing a moral dilemma with value scale.

[mawilson 2,133]

You can't equate everything in nature to some kind of value scale. What's worth more - the Grand Canyon or the great pyramids of Egypt? Nonsensical.

Not the same category, Steven - the pyramids are man-made structures, while the

Grand Canyon is one of Mother Nature's masterpieces.

You can put a value on people's lives. If you had to kill one of two people -

1) a famous artist/composer/scientist or

2) a lazy, drug-addicted bum who hasn't done anything in his life,

who would you kill?

I'll make it easier for you - if you don't kill one of them, I will kill 1,000 people,

starting with your family.

You are confusing a moral dilemma with value scale.

I'm not confusing anything. Who would you kill?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You can't equate everything in nature to some kind of value scale. What's worth more - the Grand Canyon or the great pyramids of Egypt? Nonsensical.

Not the same category, Steven - the pyramids are man-made structures, while the

Grand Canyon is one of Mother Nature's masterpieces.

You can put a value on people's lives. If you had to kill one of two people -

1) a famous artist/composer/scientist or

2) a lazy, drug-addicted bum who hasn't done anything in his life,

who would you kill?

I'll make it easier for you - if you don't kill one of them, I will kill 1,000 people,

starting with your family.

If I have to explain the absurdity of this gibberish to you...you wouldn't understand it.

As hypothetical situations go it is pretty silly given that most people would put their loved ones above anyone, not just those that are arbitrarily deemed to have no value.

We don't live in nazi Germany, we don't have to decide who gets to survive because only 4 people can be accommodated in a trap door cellar. So really these scenarios are meaningless - certainly from the perspective of someone who looks down from a Manhattan penthouse and a six or seven figure salary. So its not as cut and dried as is being made out, and its a pretty silly scenario all told.

What if you need a doctor and the only one available has a rape conviction - does that make him more valuable than a high paid, near sighted lawyer?

What if you need someone able bodied and the only candidate just happens to be a sex offender?

What if indeed...

Obama was accused of elitism in the election for making comments about religious types and gun owners in Pennsylvania, but that pales in comparison here. Putting a value on human life from a position of privilege is pretty much the very definition of elitism and that reasoning has certainly been in evidence in dictatorial governments to justify why millions of people need to be enslaved or exterminated to justify the position of those same privileged elites.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[mawilson 2,133]

We don't live in nazi Germany, we don't have to decide who gets to survive because only 4 people can be accommodated in a trap door cellar. So really these scenarios are meaningless - certainly from the perspective of someone who looks down from a Manhattan penthouse and a six or seven figure salary. So its not as cut and dried as is being made out, and its a pretty silly scenario all told.

Right. We don't decide who gets to live or die based on what they are worth, but that

doesn't mean they are worth the same.

The life of a serial killer is NOT worth the same as the life of a mother of three kids.

Any kind of logic that claims otherwise is just insane!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno man - for someone who resolutely defends Israel your reasoning on this "value of human" life point doesn't seem too dissimilar to the reasoning behind the concentration camps.

Perhaps I'm wrong here but it seems to me that you're saying that wealth, education and privilege gives you more of a right to be alive than someone who doesn't have these things.

FWIW, this discussion of human life's worth has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine.

I'm not saying that Israeli lives are worth more - it was another poster that suggested it.

Besides, bombs don't really discriminate - man, woman, rich, poor, murderer or hero

are all targets.

The question was asked earlier about how many Palestinian civilians are worth sacrificing to prevent hamas' rocket attacks. You yourself made the point that the Palestinians are not innocent because they elected hamas to begin with so presumably any collateral damage can be blamed if not on hamas then on these "guilty" citizens who must pay the price for their election choices.

But yes this diverged onto a more general philosophical point about the value of human life. In that vein what you are arguing requires a special set of circumstances to justify who gets a spot in a life raft. But we don't live in a society where we have to make such ruthless choices, so it isn't something that can be justified ethically, at least not without calling into question how you view the relative worth of a human being to be alive.

The idea you seem to be promoting is a pretty evil one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We don't live in nazi Germany, we don't have to decide who gets to survive because only 4 people can be accommodated in a trap door cellar. So really these scenarios are meaningless - certainly from the perspective of someone who looks down from a Manhattan penthouse and a six or seven figure salary. So its not as cut and dried as is being made out, and its a pretty silly scenario all told.

Right. We don't decide who gets to live or die based on what they are worth, but that

doesn't mean they are worth the same.

The life of a serial killer is NOT worth the same as the life of a mother of three kids.

Any kind of logic that claims otherwise is just insane!

Well you are using exaggerated examples and the emotional outrage of a crime, and the danger posed by a disturbed killer to make your point seem like obvious common sense. It isnt which is why I asked you earlier about how you view the worth Of mentally retarded people.

What I'm trying to gauge here is to what extent you follow through with this rationale - and that a person doesn't need to have committed a crime to be worthless in your view - in terms of tangible skills, education or income.

So again I ask - how many retarded or physically disabled people do you think your life is worth?

Edited December 31, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You can't equate everything in nature to some kind of value scale. What's worth more - the Grand Canyon or the great pyramids of Egypt? Nonsensical.

Not the same category, Steven - the pyramids are man-made structures, while the

Grand Canyon is one of Mother Nature's masterpieces.

You can put a value on people's lives. If you had to kill one of two people -

1) a famous artist/composer/scientist or

2) a lazy, drug-addicted bum who hasn't done anything in his life,

who would you kill?

I'll make it easier for you - if you don't kill one of them, I will kill 1,000 people,

starting with your family.

You are confusing a moral dilemma with value scale.

I'm not confusing anything. Who would you kill?

Sure you are. You are framing it as a question of value when it's really a moral dilemma. The decision is not made based on value but on what is morally the most prudent. To frame your question another way, Mark - you run a hospital and have only one bed available, but two people in badly need of care, one is an elderly woman and the other is a young and brilliant professor - which one do you turn away? Moral dilemma.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

But yes this diverged onto a more general philosophical point about the value of human life. In that vein what you are arguing requires a special set of circumstances to justify who gets a spot in a life raft. But we don't live in a society where we have to make such ruthless choices, so it isn't something that can be justified ethically, at least not without calling into question how you view the relative worth of a human being to be alive.

The "special set of circumstances" was just an example to illustrate my point - that

most people would save a Mozart over a Hitler.

Not having to make such choices doesn't require a belief that all lives are worth the same.

Sure you are. You are framing it as a question of value when it's really a moral dilemma. The decision is not made based on value but on what is morally the most prudent. To frame your question another way, Mark - you run a hospital and have only one bed available, but two people in badly need of care, one is an elderly woman and the other is a young and brilliant professor - which one do you turn away? Moral dilemma.

Blah blah blah. Who would you kill?

Well you are using exaggerated examples and the emotional outrage of a crime, and the danger posed by a disturbed killer to make your point seem like obvious common sense. It isnt which is why I asked you earlier about how you view the worth Of mentally retarded people.

What I'm trying to gauge here is to what extent you follow through with this rationale - and that a person doesn't need to have committed a crime to be worthless in your view - in terms of tangible skills, education or income.

So again I ask - how many retarded or physically disabled people do you think your life is worth?

I answered your questions earlier.

[Tahoma 2,291]

We don't live in nazi Germany, we don't have to decide who gets to survive because only 4 people can be accommodated in a trap door cellar. So really these scenarios are meaningless - certainly from the perspective of someone who looks down from a Manhattan penthouse and a six or seven figure salary. So its not as cut and dried as is being made out, and its a pretty silly scenario all told.

Right. We don't decide who gets to live or die based on what they are worth, but that

doesn't mean they are worth the same.

The life of a serial killer is NOT worth the same as the life of a mother of three kids.

Any kind of logic that claims otherwise is just insane!

Maybe you and I could take turns deciding what "worth" means...and also take turns assigning "worth" to everyone. Wouldn't you agree that's the only fair way to do it? However, I have a problem with you going first. You took the easy one...the serial killer and the mother of three kids. Now I am stuck deciding the worth of two different mothers...and they both have three kids! I can see that this is not going to be easy.

[mawilson 2,133]

Now I am stuck deciding the worth of two different mothers...and they both have three kids! I can see that this is not going to be easy.

Now THAT, Steven, is a moral dilemma!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But yes this diverged onto a more general philosophical point about the value of human life. In that vein what you are arguing requires a special set of circumstances to justify who gets a spot in a life raft. But we don't live in a society where we have to make such ruthless choices, so it isn't something that can be justified ethically, at least not without calling into question how you view the relative worth of a human being to be alive.

The "special set of circumstances" was just an example to illustrate my point - that

most people would save a Mozart over a Hitler.

Not having to make such choices doesn't require a belief that all lives are worth the same.

Sure you are. You are framing it as a question of value when it's really a moral dilemma. The decision is not made based on value but on what is morally the most prudent. To frame your question another way, Mark - you run a hospital and have only one bed available, but two people in badly need of care, one is an elderly woman and the other is a young and brilliant professor - which one do you turn away? Moral dilemma.

Blah blah blah. Who would you kill?

Sociopath.

[mawilson 2,133]

Maybe you and I could take turns deciding what "worth" means...and also take turns assigning "worth" to everyone. Wouldn't you agree that's the only fair way to do it?

Sounds good - have everyone assign worth between 0 and 100, then compute the average.

Sociopath.

Good choice, Steven. Most people would kill the sociopath too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gotcha. I'm on my phone at the airport, didn't see that post.

But ok so you see your life as being more useful/valuable than someone with downs syndrome. But the question still remains how many such people do you think your life is worth? Is it a one for one, or can we do away with a whole busload of those people?

Ok so I'm being facetious here - but your examples all seem to require a special set of circumstances to change the relative order of things to make one person seem to be of more value than another. So I wonder how you quantify your worth to society to justify why others are worth less?

Perhaps you are some sort of philanthropist or otherwise have a job that somehow benefits mankind. Perhaps you have superhuman powers I hope it isn't about money, because that's a pretty arbitrary measure of someones worth.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maybe you and I could take turns deciding what "worth" means...and also take turns assigning "worth" to everyone. Wouldn't you agree that's the only fair way to do it?

Sounds good - have everyone assign worth between 0 and 100, then compute the average.

Sociopath.

Good choice, Steven. Most people would kill the sociopath too.