| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ophis
Royal Citizen
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 470
Local time: 1:38 AM
Location: Manchester, UK
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| kmisho wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | kmisho wrote: |
I would argue that it is incorrect to assert that there are no objective criteria by which we can define life as having value. |
hokay, then. i'll bite.
What is the objective criteria that we can use to define life as having value? |
Rarity for one, the prime basis of assigning value to anything.
I think the way a lot of people think of objectivity distorts their thinking. Look at it this way: The important thing about objectivity is not that it's outside of us but that we can't get into it. It's the lack of thinking this way that leads believers to, for example, deny the objectivity of ethics. They think that objective means cosmic, that if something is objective then it's true everywhere. This is backward. Logic is objective because it is a tiny invincible nut that, when used correctly, we cannot crack. This is what makes it objective, that it is coherent unto itself and there is no room in it for our opinions.
Of course the rarity of life could turn out to be just wrong. But for now we have no other examples. As far as we know life on earth is the only life there is. |
That only makes the human species as a whole valuable, not individual human lives, since individual humans are both common and easy to manufacture. It also does not justify assigning any more value to the human species than to any other species, so humanity has no more value than plague bacteria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Abraxus wrote: | | Moloth wrote: |
what an absolute dodge. 
2 + 2 = 4 is an objective truth. it is true for me, you, the trees and aliens on another planet.
"life", having 'value' is NOT objective. that sort of value is given and applied by a thinking creature. GOLD is not objectively valuable, either. it is only valuable because we decided that it was. The same applies to anything else that isn't a physical, logical or mathematical law... |
Physical, logical and mathematical laws aren't the only objective things. If morals can be objective, so can the preciousness of life. If you're a moral relativist, then there's no point to this discussion. |
morals are concepts. they are completely subjective.... this has been shown many, many times. what is moral to one person is not moral to another. there is no universal morality out there. no perfect, objective measure of right and wrong.
that said, i do happen to think that "suffering = bad" and "pleasure = good"... but that is merely my limited, subjective opinion.
yes, i AM a moral relativist, so you might be right about this being kinda pointless...
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abraxus
Forum Leader
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 1914
Local time: 8:38 AM
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ophis wrote: | | Abraxus wrote: | | If you believe it necessary in any way for me to help a drowning child, then you are already conceding to the objective preciousness of life. On the other hand, if you think the value of life is subjective, then letting the child drown should be perfectly acceptable to you. |
I believe it desirable, but not necessary. The fact that I don't think there's an objective reason to value life doesn't mean I don't personally value it. |
But you don't think I necessarily have to value it? Do you perhaps think it is 'objectively' desirable?
| Abraxus wrote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
All that shows is that there is no contradiction between a lot of people believing something and that thing being objectively true. The fact that most people consider life valuable is compatible with life being objectively valuable, but it does not demonstrate life's objective value. |
How about the fact that we (and just about every other creature on the planet) have evolved to try to preserve our own lives? |
That just tells me why we are predisposed to consider life precious. It doesn't really remove the subjectivity. Had we evolved as non-social animals, would human life still be precious? If so, why? |
To humans (as we know them) who had not yet evolved, yes. The fact that humans don't exist does not negate the objectivity of the preciousness of their lives should they come into existence. The same could be said for 2+2=4. If no one is around to understand what that even means, does that make it any less objective or even subjective?
| Quote: |
| Abraxus wrote: | | When I say something is valuable or precious, I don't necessarily have to put a price tag on it. It just means that the thing is precious as opposed to worthless. This is objective enough and there is no need for absolutes, if that's what you're getting at. |
But to call it objective, it has to be valuable independently of human opinion. |
It is.
| Quote: |
The property of value ultimately depends on human decision. Like Moloth said, 2+2=4 is true independent of human opinion. Moral rules can even be true independently of opinion, though this depends on how you define what "morality" means. Remove human opinion from the concept of value and there is no basis left for calling something valuable, and this is what makes value subjective. |
Life itself is what's valuable. If there is no life, then there is absolutely nothing to appreciate because there's nothing living to appreciate it. This is why it is objectively precious and is not necessarily dependent on what humans or any particular (alien) lifeform thinks. If you think humans must be around for life to be considered precious, then they must also be around to accept as objective 2+2=4 or else even that's meaningless.
| Quote: |
| Abraxus wrote: | | Because it's useful for us to think of life as precious, wouldn't you say? |
It's only useful if you assume that we already value life, or at least our own life. For someone who does not value any life, including his own, it is not useful to think of life as precious. |
Like I said, those who don't value life (including their own and perhaps the drowning child's), are usually termed insane and unlike most of us. For that matter, there are probably people who also think 2+2=4 is false.
_________________
~I'm waiting for the day when mankind will outgrow religion.
~My only regret is that I never left religion sooner.
Software Utilities Famous Philosopher Quotes (1:41, Divx 5, 8.8 MB) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | kmisho wrote: |
I would argue that it is incorrect to assert that there are no objective criteria by which we can define life as having value. |
hokay, then. i'll bite.
What is the objective criteria that we can use to define life as having value? |
Rarity for one, the prime basis of assigning value to anything.
I think the way a lot of people think of objectivity distorts their thinking. Look at it this way: The important thing about objectivity is not that it's outside of us but that we can't get into it. It's the lack of thinking this way that leads believers to, for example, deny the objectivity of ethics. They think that objective means cosmic, that if something is objective then it's true everywhere. This is backward. Logic is objective because it is a tiny invincible nut that, when used correctly, we cannot crack. This is what makes it objective, that it is coherent unto itself and there is no room in it for our opinions.
Of course the rarity of life could turn out to be just wrong. But for now we have no other examples. As far as we know life on earth is the only life there is. |
Life is rare? depends on what scale we're using doesn't it? on a planetary scale, life is common... omnipresent, actually. we CAN'T rid ourselves it, its so common.
Even zoomed out a bit, the 'stuff of life', CHON molecules are friggn' everywhere in the cosmos. Now, of course i fully admit that Earth may be precious, but only because we have yet to find life on other worlds... but we've only been seriously looking for less than one human lifetime.
I have the feeling that life will be found to be almost as fecund in the universe as it is on Earth.
| Quote: | | This is what makes it objective, that it is coherent unto itself and there is no room in it for our opinions |
and what is Morality if NOT just our opinions??? That is ALL they are!
like beauty, value, worth, etc... it is completely dependent on the perception of the observer. It is the very definition of being "subjective"!
there IS NO objective ruling on morality.. and if there is, i will ask you the same thing i have asked every other moral objectivist: where is this list of objective morals? where is a single moral that is not subject to interpretation by the person holding it/feeling it/thinking about it?
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 7:38 PM
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What is the objective criteria that we can use to define life as having value? |
This debate over value is very simply solved.
To understand the concept of value as it relates to life, you have to understand that life is a prerequisite for value. In other words, without life, value would be impossible. Dead people, as well as inanimate objects, do not construct value systems or take action in the pursuit of values or in accordance with principles.
That is a very important concept to grasp. Defining life as having valuable could be viewed as redundant, but really it's a stolen concept even before it could be considered redundant. The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept has been elborated on in the philosophy section of this website.
To understand why the OBJECTIVE value of human life is the standard by which human values are formed it's essential to grasp that first concept, and that they cannot exist independantly of one another.
Bacterial life is not the precondition for human values, human life is. Others are not the sole source of individual values, individuals are. A fact of human nature is that we possess the ability to make choices, volition. This "list of things" you're looking for doesn't exist, and they don't need to. For a human individual, the end is survival and happiness and the means are values and virtues that serve that end. Values and virtues are common to, and necessary for, the flourishing of every human person. However, each individual will require them to a different degree. Each man employs his individual judgments to determine the amount of time and effort that should go into the pursuit of various values and virtues. Finding the proper combination and proportion is the task for each person in view of his own talents, potentialities, and circumstances. Values and virtues are necessary for a flourishing life and are objectively discernable, but the exact weighting of them for a specific person is highly individualized. Individualized does not mean subjective, because it is human nature that is being catered to, and only in varying degrees do different people pursue similar values in different degrees.
In order for a chain of values to make sense, there must be some end in itself and ultimate value for which all other values are means. An end in itself is something that we pursue for its own sake rather than pursuing it for the sake of something else. An ultimate value is sought for its own sake and for the sake of which we pursue everything else. An infinite progression or chain of ends and means toward a non-existent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. All must converge on an ultimate value.
For an individual, every individual, that ultimate value is his or her own life. This is an objective fact that if diverted from, will end in self-destruction rendering value impossible for that person. This self-destruction will manifest itself not immediately and absolutely but often slowly and will generally be visible in some form of pain.
An individual’s task is to choose from among numerous values to find the most appropriate for himself. A person must make specific choices with respect to his career, his relationships, and so on. A hierarchy of values helps people make judgments regarding what to do or to pursue. To do this, an individual must assign a weight, either explicitly or implicitly, to his values. Values need to be weighted or ranked in terms of ordinal numbers. A man requires a prioritized enumeration of values. He must judge the ultimate contribution to the value of his life that exists at the apex of his hierarchy.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so very simply, in fact, it took 7 paragraphs...
O_o
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 7:38 PM
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | so very simply, in fact, it took 7 paragraphs...
O_o |
expanding on a simple idea.
The basic principle is that life is the precondition of value.
Because it is so simple and most of you have failed to recognize it, I expanded into further explanation.
And for the same reason..
| Quote: | | there IS NO objective ruling on morality.. and if there is, i will ask you the same thing i have asked every other moral objectivist: where is this list of objective morals? |
...that statement is wrong.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12842
Local time: 4:38 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Abraxus wrote: | | If morals can be objective, so can the preciousness of life. If you're a moral relativist, then there's no point to this discussion. |
"Precious" is an assigned value.
Value, by definition, requires a comparison.
Therefore, there is no such thing as an objective value.
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12842
Local time: 4:38 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | | Rarity for one, the prime basis of assigning value to anything. |
Value is a combination of scarcity AND desirability (supply and demand).
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12842
Local time: 4:38 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | morals are concepts. they are completely subjective.... this has been shown many, many times. what is moral to one person is not moral to another. there is no universal morality out there. no perfect, objective measure of right and wrong. |
Societies assign "right and wrong" morals based on whether an act is constructive or destructive. It works very well as a litmus test.
| Moloth wrote: | | that said, i do happen to think that "suffering = bad" and "pleasure = good"... but that is merely my limited, subjective opinion. |
You heathenist. 
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | morals are concepts. they are completely subjective.... this has been shown many, many times. what is moral to one person is not moral to another. there is no universal morality out there. no perfect, objective measure of right and wrong. |
Societies assign "right and wrong" morals based on whether an act is constructive or destructive. It works very well as a litmus test.
|
oh, i agree... it works 'very well', but its not a universal, objective concept. hell, even what is considered "constructive" and "destructive" varies depending on who you ask...
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12842
Local time: 4:38 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | CET wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | morals are concepts. they are completely subjective.... this has been shown many, many times. what is moral to one person is not moral to another. there is no universal morality out there. no perfect, objective measure of right and wrong. |
Societies assign "right and wrong" morals based on whether an act is constructive or destructive. It works very well as a litmus test.
|
oh, i agree... it works 'very well', but its not a universal, objective concept. hell, even what is considered "constructive" and "destructive" varies depending on who you ask... |
Society enforces the rules, so they decide based on their environment and their idea of what "constructive" and "destructive" are. The Germans in the 30's and 40's thought it was "destructive" to the German people to allow Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals to live, and that it would be "constructive" to kill as many of them as possible.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PJS
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 937
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Clearwater,Fl.
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | CET wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | morals are concepts. they are completely subjective.... this has been shown many, many times. what is moral to one person is not moral to another. there is no universal morality out there. no perfect, objective measure of right and wrong. |
Societies assign "right and wrong" morals based on whether an act is constructive or destructive. It works very well as a litmus test.
|
oh, i agree... it works 'very well', but its not a universal, objective concept. hell, even what is considered "constructive" and "destructive" varies depending on who you ask... |
Society enforces the rules, so they decide based on their environment and their idea of what "constructive" and "destructive" are. The Germans in the 30's and 40's thought it was "destructive" to the German people to allow Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals to live, and that it would be "constructive" to kill as many of them as possible. |
Mike Shermer argues for a middle ground between absolute and relative morality, what he deems provisional ethics. That is there are moral principles which apply to most people, under most circumstances, most of the time. The moral sentiments we feel are products of evolution and belong to the species in a general sense. Of course there are some variations both individually and culturally. The exceptions just don't disprove general tendencies.
I would liken these moral sentiments to common aesthetic judgments. We feel something is wrong initially and then justify those feelings with arguments we develop to convince others and perhaps ourselves of the righness of our intuitions. It seems that makes me somewhat of a subjectivist but I think there is a large degree of intersubjective consensus on many moral matters.
_________________
The path of least resistance and least trouble is a mental rut already made. It requires troublesome work to undertake the alternation of old beliefs.
-John Dewey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abraxus
Forum Leader
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 1914
Local time: 8:38 AM
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | Abraxus wrote: | | If morals can be objective, so can the preciousness of life. If you're a moral relativist, then there's no point to this discussion. |
"Precious" is an assigned value.
Value, by definition, requires a comparison.
Therefore, there is no such thing as an objective value. |
There is no such thing as 'assigned value' without life. Therefore life, must be valuable or precious in itself.
_________________
~I'm waiting for the day when mankind will outgrow religion.
~My only regret is that I never left religion sooner.
Software Utilities Famous Philosopher Quotes (1:41, Divx 5, 8.8 MB) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Abraxus wrote: | | CET wrote: | | Abraxus wrote: | | If morals can be objective, so can the preciousness of life. If you're a moral relativist, then there's no point to this discussion. |
"Precious" is an assigned value.
Value, by definition, requires a comparison.
Therefore, there is no such thing as an objective value. |
There is no such thing as 'assigned value' without life. Therefore life, must be valuable or precious in itself. |
that does not follow.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
