Israeli assault targets symbols of Hamas power

[mawilson 2,133]

Or...what if, unknown to mawilson, the mother previously had killed her children. What then? How about it, mawilson? Are you beginning to see the road that your logic is taking you down?

It's not taking me anywhere. If A's life is worth more than B's life, it does NOT mean

that it's ok to kill B to save A. I never said that and I don't know why you're trying

to imply that I did.

I used the "kill A to save B" example to make you guys choose between A and B,

because you stubbornly claim than A and B are always the same. Intuitively

most people understand that Beethoven's life is worth more than Saddam Hussein's,

and if one of them absolutely had to die, most people would do the right thing.

[Tahoma 2,291]

6 months later you read in the paper that this mother that was worth more than the serial killer drowns the three kids and takes off never to be seen again. You will never know if she remarried, had more kids, drowned them too ,etc.

Well, without a crystal ball or ability to see into the future, we can only make decisions

based on the facts that are presented to us. Statistically speaking, your scenario is

extremely unlikely to happen in real life.

Estimating someone's life's worth is difficult because potential future achievements are

not always (although often) related to past performance. One thing is certain - as you

get older, your potential for future achievements approaches zero and becomes less of

a variable. By this measure, a 90-year-old man's life isn't worth a hell of a lot.

(Any insurance company will tell you the same if you try to buy a life insurance policy

for a 90 year old man.)

It must be very time-consuming for you to judge the "worth" of a single human being, since there are an exponential number of factors to consider. Imagine if you had a quota of only two human beings per day. You would be at it 24 hours per day simply to compare the "worth" of those two. How would you find the time? Maybe you could give me some pointers on efficient powernaps.

[Amby 490]

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.

I would kill #2

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its an artificial scenario. People aren't generally put in positions where such choices have any relevance.

But to go with your example, once again you expect an emotional response based on the evil brutality of Saddam. But that still doesn't qualify your contention about "worth". What makes Beethoven valuable? What was the worth of his talent - CD sales or something less tangible?

Then again was saddams worth related to his crimes or the mans personal skills? In that regard you'd probably get a different answer from a priest than you would from the aforementioned insurance salesman.

Saddam couldn't write a symphony but he could shoot a gun and direct men in war - did Beethoven have those skills?

But I guess the obvious point you have missed is that Saddam actually did make arbitrary judgements about human life. How are his criteria for who deserves to live different from yours? What right do either of you have to make such determinations?

It would, once again seem to come down to who has the power. Saddam didn't have the moral right to decide who lived or died, he just sidestepped morality altogether. Which isn't terribly different to what you're doing. The difference is that you don't have the power to enforce your rationale.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[mawilson 2,133]

For insurance purposes sure. But your grounds for this justification still seem rooted in economic economic measures of value. In that regard we might as well ask what value music and art have - or indeed the measure of what your aforementioned genius composer is worth. Is it all about CD sales or do we put value on these things that goes beyond the material?

Grounds for justification of what?

Insurance is just one example of how the value of human life can be calculated using

a mathematical formula. Imagine that - insurance companies can put a price tag on

human life! Where's the outrage?

It must be very time-consuming for you to judge the "worth" of a single human being, since there are an exponential number of factors to consider. Imagine if you had a quota of only two human beings per day. You would be at it 24 hours per day simply to compare the "worth" of those two. How would you find the time?

I would use a computer.

[Amby 490]

For the record, I agree with Mark. I'm not going to argue with you guys because we're never going to agree on how to determine a person's worth. I think someone who is a pysician, a nurse, a scientist, etc can contribute more to society than I can as a student and therefore they all have more worth than I do. Every life has some value or worth but it's not all the same.

[mawilson 2,133]

But I guess the obvious point you have missed is that Saddam actually did make arbitrary judgements about human life. How are his criteria for who deserves to live different from yours? What right do either of you have to make such determinations?

When did Saddam ever kill a person to save another person?

[mawilson 2,133]

It would, once again seem to come down to who has the power.

It always comes down to that. It's the only time when your life's worth matters - when

someone has to decide whether you live or die so that someone else can live.

Edited December 31, 2008 by mawilson

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Mark you're doing a bit of bait and switch here - you indicate that the measure of value you use to determine worth has little or nothing to do with morality, but you present these artificial scenarios where the expected response is a moral one.

If you honestly don't think that morality is important as a function of determining "value" then it could quite conceivably be argued that Saddam husseins leadership and military skills make him more valuable than beethoven.

So at least from what I'm reading - your logic seems fuzzy at best.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But I guess the obvious point you have missed is that Saddam actually did make arbitrary judgements about human life. How are his criteria for who deserves to live different from yours? What right do either of you have to make such determinations?

When did Saddam ever kill a person to save another person?

I'm fairly sure that a lot of the people he killed or had killed were killed to preserve his own position and that of members of his family.

Because.. Badabing! he valued his position and power over the lives of others.

[Nagishkaw 510]

17 pages already.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For the record, I agree with Mark. I'm not going to argue with you guys because we're never going to agree on how to determine a person's worth. I think someone who is a pysician, a nurse, a scientist, etc can contribute more to society than I can as a student and therefore they all have more worth than I do. Every life has some value or worth but it's not all the same.

That's fine as far as it goes for getting a job. Less so when arbitrarily deciding who has the right to live.

I firmly believe that this is a determination that can't be made without completely abandoning morality and ethics, and as far as it goes while mark is making out that artificial measures of worth make him more valuable, he doesn't seem willing to take that extra step of logic to follow through with that line of thought.

17 pages already.

Three hour flight delay at lax

[Amby 490]

For the record, I agree with Mark. I'm not going to argue with you guys because we're never going to agree on how to determine a person's worth. I think someone who is a pysician, a nurse, a scientist, etc can contribute more to society than I can as a student and therefore they all have more worth than I do. Every life has some value or worth but it's not all the same.

That's fine as far as it goes for getting a job. Less so when arbitrarily deciding who has the right to live.

I firmly believe that this is a determination that can't be made without completely abandoning morality and ethics, and as far as it goes while mark is making out that artificial measures of worth make him more valuable, he doesn't seem willing to take that extra step of logic to follow through with that line of thought.

If it was between me and a doctor I'd say kill me because the doctor is more valuable to society and could save more lives than I could.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But that of course relies on artificial hypothetical scenarios and the benevolence of the person making the decision to choose between you.

You can pass off the ethical and moral considerations to someone else - but they don't really go away...

[Amby 490]

But that of course relies on artificial hypothetical scenarios and the benevolence of the person making the decision to choose between you.

You can pass off the ethical and moral considerations to someone else - but they don't really go away...

oh PD...I luvz ya...I give up...I'm in too good of a mood today to debate with people online