Why do we value human life?

[baker]

Maybe humans don't value anything much? After all, we value human life infinitely more than animal and plant lives - which isn't saying much because most people apply zero value to non-human lives. To them, a hundred billion animal lives does not compare with even a single, primal human embryo.

The situation seems to be more nuanced than that. Pro-lifers are typically also in favor of capital punishment and other harsh punishments.

One religious anti-abortion argument is based not on the idea that human life itself is sacred, but on the idea that interfering with unborn human life would be a crime against God, whereas killing or beating a human that isn't an infant anymore is not necessarily such a crime (God commands in the Bible that some people must be killed and others harshly punished).

After all, we value human life infinitely more than animal and plant lives

But many people love their pets more than they love any human.


Clearly, humans do value things, very much so. It's trying to develop some universally applicable system of valuing that is proving difficult.

[baker]

I think parents tend to like to bring up their children in a safe and certain world.

However, this is true both for the parents who teach their child that the universe is a warm, welcoming place; as well as for the parents who teach their child that the world is a dangerous dog-eat-dog place.
The latter parents are teaching their child that if he fights hard enough, he'll be safe and that he can win, that he can come out on top.
In both cases, the parents are setting the child up for eventual failure.

Many people complete their entire lives cloistered in this childish naivete.

A dog-eat-dog mentality is still cloistered and naive, as such a person creates for themselves more struggle and more enemies than necessary.

It would make more sense to enable people to ask questions and challenge the norms.

What's the point of asking questions when there's noone to answer them? Or at least noone to answer them truthfully?

I think the individual's focus should be on the hidden curriculum, and to master differentiating between the official curriculum and the hidden one. In my experience, parents and educational institutions that teach politically correct fluff typically don't believe any of it, and they make that clear between the lines.

The thing that is naive is to wear one's wisdom loving heart on the sleeve.

[Terrapin Station]

That's a cross between a naturalistic fallacy

I wasn't suggesting any value judgment with respect to it.

Selection works in the breach, not in the fore.

I hadn't suggested otherwise there.

[Pattern-chaser]

The standard narrative in Christianity (-ies) is that life on Earth is a unique, one-time event. There was one creation, one beginning, there is one life, only one planet on which there is life, and there is going to be one end, one judgment, and from then on, one eternal (!) heaven or one eternal (!) damnation. Hence only one true religion is necessary, and only one savior to atone for mankind's sins.
It would be sacrilege, heresy, to suggest that there could be more than one savior of mankind.

I can see that you are describing the standard Christian narrative, not what you personally believe. But this illustrates well, for me, what is wrong with Christianity (the faith I was raised in): too many ones! Too much dogma. Only one planet on which there is life? It's possible (we haven't found any other life, yet), but it doesn't seem likely, in the light of current knowledge about how big the universe is, and how many planets there are....

[Pattern-chaser]

Clearly, humans do value things, very much so. It's trying to develop some universally applicable system of valuing that is proving difficult.

Perhaps because the values we assign are anything but universal, and cannot therefore lead to a system of valuing that is "universally applicable"?

[Pattern-chaser]

In my experience, parents and educational institutions that teach politically correct fluff typically don't believe any of it, and they make that clear between the lines.

Then aren't they raising these children to understand that what they are taught is wrong, and those who teach them are liars? And that our education (formal or informal) is intentionally deceptive?

[Jack D Ripper]

If it did it before, then the Holy Spirit can impregnate women again. Or has god become impotent with age?
Rejecting the story off-hand in the modern era is essentially saying that god is no longer powerful and capable. He used to be able to do magic tricks, but he no longer has that power.
What you are stating seems to suggest that you think modern Christians think that god is dead.

Not at all. The standard narrative in Christianity (-ies) is that life on Earth is a unique, one-time event. There was one creation, one beginning, there is one life, only one planet on which there is life, and there is going to be one end, one judgment, and from then on, one eternal (!) heaven or one eternal (!) damnation. Hence only one true religion is necessary, and only one savior to atone for mankind's sins.
It would be sacrilege, heresy, to suggest that there could be more than one savior of mankind. Virgin conception and birth is unique and reserved for Jesus.

Thus the standard narrative in Christianity.

Who is to say that it is not the second coming of Christ?

[Sy Borg]

Maybe humans don't value anything much? After all, we value human life infinitely more than animal and plant lives - which isn't saying much because most people apply zero value to non-human lives. To them, a hundred billion animal lives does not compare with even a single, primal human embryo.

The situation seems to be more nuanced than that. Pro-lifers are typically also in favor of capital punishment and other harsh punishments.

One religious anti-abortion argument is based not on the idea that human life itself is sacred, but on the idea that interfering with unborn human life would be a crime against God, whereas killing or beating a human that isn't an infant anymore is not necessarily such a crime (God commands in the Bible that some people must be killed and others harshly punished).

That makes clear that most pro-lifers - those who are pro capital punishment and war - have no special care about human life at all, perhaps even the contrary (certainly this is the case for those hungering for the Apocalypse). It's just about angering an imaginary deity's unknown plans.

After all, we value human life infinitely more than animal and plant lives

But many people love their pets more than they love any human.

Clearly, humans do value things, very much so. It's trying to develop some universally applicable system of valuing that is proving difficult.

I prefer to note the exceptions (like preferring dogs to humans) and focus on the big picture. So, when I look at the rapid and, often cruel, extermination of the animal world, soon replaced by desertlands, what I see is almost complete disregard. A few "bleeding hearts" like me do not change the general picture, unfortunately.

[Sculptor1]

That's a cross between a naturalistic fallacy

I wasn't suggesting any value judgment with respect to it.

Selection works in the breach, not in the fore.

I hadn't suggested otherwise there.

But as you offered it as an explanation for valuing human life, rather than FROM life having value in a selective sense.

[Jack D Ripper]

Maybe humans don't value anything much? After all, we value human life infinitely more than animal and plant lives - which isn't saying much because most people apply zero value to non-human lives. To them, a hundred billion animal lives does not compare with even a single, primal human embryo.

The situation seems to be more nuanced than that. Pro-lifers are typically also in favor of capital punishment and other harsh punishments.

It means that they are mislabeling themselves. It also means that they do not value all human life, only some of it.

One religious anti-abortion argument is based not on the idea that human life itself is sacred, but on the idea that interfering with unborn human life would be a crime against God, whereas killing or beating a human that isn't an infant anymore is not necessarily such a crime (God commands in the Bible that some people must be killed and others harshly punished).

A major problem for that is that the people who are to be executed in the Bible may be pregnant, and there is no command to wait until after they give birth before they are executed. So it is nonsense to say that the unborn are to be valued according to the Bible. In fact, in some cases, the Bible endorses abortion (Numbers 5 involves a magic potion to cause abortions, approved of by God). To save myself some trouble, you can look up the verses referred to in this:

Scriptural truths

Ten biblical episodes and prophecies provide an unequivocal expression of God's attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of "unborn children" and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Brief summaries:

• A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).

• The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

• God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).

• Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).

• King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16).

• Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18).

• For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8).

• God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).

• For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).

• Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).

https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/2560 ... ion-rights


Basically, the "pro-life" zealots go against the BIble on the significance of abortion. The idea that what they are doing is somehow Biblical is just a total lie.

After all, we value human life infinitely more than animal and plant lives

But many people love their pets more than they love any human.


Clearly, humans do value things, very much so. It's trying to develop some universally applicable system of valuing that is proving difficult.

That is because for something to have value, there must be a thing valuing it. It is the thing valuing it that makes it valuable. Or, in other words, nothing has inherent value; it is just that some beings value things.

[Terrapin Station]

I wasn't suggesting any value judgment with respect to it.



I hadn't suggested otherwise there.

But as you offered it as an explanation for valuing human life, rather than FROM life having value in a selective sense.

What happens is that we wind up with both (a) creatures that are in states where they value like creatures, and (b) creatures that aren't in states where they value like creatures.

When (b) occurs, and we have the sorts of creatures that don't survive well without some assistance, (b) tends to be selected against, because there's less of a chance of those creatures surviving to a reproduction stage.

[baker]

It means that they are mislabeling themselves. It also means that they do not value all human life, only some of it.

It's not like they have pledged allegiance to you. Remember, they have no other gods before their own.
It's naive to hold religious people to secular academic standards.

One religious anti-abortion argument is based not on the idea that human life itself is sacred, but on the idea that interfering with unborn human life would be a crime against God, whereas killing or beating a human that isn't an infant anymore is not necessarily such a crime (God commands in the Bible that some people must be killed and others harshly punished).

A major problem for that is that the people who are to be executed in the Bible may be pregnant, and there is no command to wait until after they give birth before they are executed. So it is nonsense to say that the unborn are to be valued according to the Bible.

I said that the above was a religious argument. The Bible can be used to support or oppose ... pretty much anything, depending on how selective one is willing to be.

Basically, the "pro-life" zealots go against the BIble on the significance of abortion. The idea that what they are doing is somehow Biblical is just a total lie.

One line of their defense is that that some biblical passages and some laws are more important than others. Such as that Jesus has undone the previous laws and installed new ones (such as the one about having to love eachother).

That is because for something to have value, there must be a thing valuing it. It is the thing valuing it that makes it valuable. Or, in other words, nothing has inherent value; it is just that some beings value things.

It's not clear that "nothing has inherent value" (relativism doesn't lead to that kind of certainty; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
But the idea that things have inherent value has relevant political, social, psychological functions. It may very well be a smokescreen, but it is still a very effective one.

[baker]

I think parents tend to like to bring up their children in a safe and certain world.
Many people complete their entire lives cloistered in this childish naivete.
The church and education can contribute to this state of being.

As for the church: no. Have you read the Psalms, for example? All that talk about petitioning God to strike down one's enemies and wading in their blood.

[baker]

In my experience, parents and educational institutions that teach politically correct fluff typically don't believe any of it, and they make that clear between the lines.

Then aren't they raising these children to understand that what they are taught is wrong, and those who teach them are liars? And that our education (formal or informal) is intentionally deceptive?

Sure, but one isn't supposed to say that out loud. Mastering this kind of duplicity appears to be an evolutionary advantage.

[baker]

I prefer to note the exceptions (like preferring dogs to humans) and focus on the big picture. So, when I look at the rapid and, often cruel, extermination of the animal world, soon replaced by desertlands, what I see is almost complete disregard. A few "bleeding hearts" like me do not change the general picture, unfortunately.

But whence the need for a "general picture"?