GameBanshee Forums

There is a black market for bodily organs, permit me to say that these people probably don't worry too much for the value of life and see it as purely monetary....

I hope your cold gets better soon CE, anything i can do? I'll mail you some chicken soup if you think it will help

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
There is a black market for bodily organs, permit me to say that these people probably don't worry too much for the value of life and see it as purely monetary....

I know - and in some parts of the world parents have to sell their children to prostitution in order to support the rest of the children...In our present society, a life (human or others) is not worth a lot at all. I belive Dottie is somehow looking for a viewpoint that would improve things, and also include other possible life forms outside of our little planet. Some kind of Universal values - which I think would be very difficult to formulate.
Sleep, I think we all abhor the killing of people to sell their organs for transplantation - but what do you think of the use of animals (like pigs) to store cloned human organs for transplant? Or the infamous "headless bodies" that British scientists proposed a few years ago - cloning of headless human bodies that only has the vital life supporting functions, to use for storing cloned organs?sorry if this is out of topic Dot

I hope your cold gets better soon CE, anything i can do? I'll mail you some chicken soup if you think it will help

Thanks Sleep, that'd be great I foresee some minor technical problems though...you can of course also cheer me up with a little ass shaking

Originally posted by C Elegans
I know - and in some parts of the world parents have to sell their children to prostitution in order to support the rest of the children...In our present society, a life (human or others) is not worth a lot at all. I belive Dottie is somehow looking for a viewpoint that would improve things, and also include other possible life forms outside of our little planet. Some kind of Universal values - which I think would be very difficult to formulate.

I know a few charities that have worked against that kind of thing (and succeeded), it is heartening to see someone suceed against those types of behaviour. Hmmm, if that is what Dottie is looking for, he could look at people like Mother Theresa, dedicating her life to aid others, there are many people like that in this world. Although it is sad to see the media make more out of the death of Princess Diana than that of Mother Theresa...but that is another debate.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Sleep, I think we all abhor the killing of people to sell their organs for transplantation - but what do you think of the use of animals (like pigs) to store cloned human organs for transplant? Or the infamous "headless bodies" that British scientists proposed a few years ago - cloning of headless human bodies that only has the vital life supporting functions, to use for storing cloned organs?sorry if this is out of topic Dot

I think it is an abuse of power on both counts, i can't imagine that an ethics comittee would be very impressed by it either. As proved recently by the Diane Love fiasco, these scientific breakthroughs so often end up being used in completely the wrong fashion. If anyone isn't familiar with Diane Love's case i will explain (just ask)

Originally posted by C Elegans
Thanks Sleep, that'd be great I foresee some minor technical problems though...you can of course also cheer me up with a little ass shaking

The travel will put some extra zing in the chicken i am sure I am shaking my ass right now, not quite the same....i think i will have to set up a web cam or something

I go back for a moment, answering the first question.
I'm anatheist, basically, so how would I define the value of life?

I had a thing with a girl some time ago..
The best moment I remember with her, was when she
held me tight, very, very tight in her arms, as the most
important thing she ever did..
(Then something went wrong with her but that'a another story....)
Now think about an item. Would you hold it so close?
Living beings can provoke... reactions.
Sense of care, happyness, sadness, anger...
Inanimate things can do it, IF they're related to other
living beings: something that rises a memory of loved one can make
you cry, and you'll hold close that object...
Music can move you, if the writer put really his heart in it
when he was composing...
What I'm trying to say:
life is the most "noble" shape of the matter.
Dan Simmons wrote that when inanimate matter gets involved in the
"living flow", then it will be reluctant to leave it....
Maybe put in a poetic manner, but (I think!) it's a scientific truth.

If you realize these things, moral comes by itself, it can be
hard to follow, but it's there.
I need no written rules, when I do something wrong I know
immediately it in my heart... it's the same moment in which
I begin to seek weak justifications for my acts or my thoughts!!!!!

Originally posted by C Elegans
Before I reply, I better make sure I understand correctly what you are after.

1. You want me to describe what makes life valuable - any life, life as a concept. Objectively speaking as would be useful as a moral standard, or objectively speaking such as "well, why should life be of anymore value than non-life speaking in terms of our entire universe?"

2. The leopard and the human: they have the same "life value", but humans can be attitributed a moral, whereas other animals cannot. Thus, a leopard does nothing morally wrong if it kills the human or other life, but the human may do something morally wrong by killing other life.

3. No, I'm not talking evolution here, only evolution as part of human biopsychology. What I mean was: Do you want a scientific description of the mechanisms or do you wish me to describe my personal experience from a subjective point of view?

Sorry if I'm really stupid today, I am very tired and have a cold

1. Speaking as would be usefull as a moral standard.

2. No missunderstanding there then.

2. Here im looking for your personal experience, but formulated in such way it could possibly be applied to any humans relation.

To me, life has kind of an eigenvalue, but that is subjective. The type of scales I use myself for deciding what life form is more worth than another is also totally subjective, I cannot see how such a scale could be objective since we must always ask ourselves: valuable for whom? If we, for instance, state that human life is more worth than the life of bacteria (ie we can kill the bacteria but not he human) that is surely from a humanocentric perspective - seen from a perspective of survival of all species on earth, it would surely be better if humans didn't exist at all. And seen from a cosmic perspective - none of this really matters at all. So Dotcom, what are you after?
[/b]

Obviously we cannot make such a value objective, but I think we could make it seem less arbitrary. For example value a human because it is human seems more arbitrary than valueing a human because its intellegent. Obviously we are still looking at things from our perspective, but atleast other species can be made to fit into that equation somehow.

I realise that you don't know the correct answer to your own question, but could you just give us an incorrect answer of a form in which you would be happy to receive the real answer. I get the impression that this is not the type of question which is answerable at all, so I am not quite sure what you're getting at...anyway

One way to look at it could for example be to value life after how intellegent we think it is, This seem to correspond somewhat to peoples values in general untill you start looking at individuals instead of species, were most people seem to claim that human life is constant no matter intelligence. Another (imo better but still far from good) way, is to judge by the moral standard held by the lifefrom in question, for example most people seem to value the life of a suicidebomber less then a victim and the life of a human in general more then any animal etc. A third way would be to assign value to percived happiness, wich obviously would produce very strange results. That tortoise seem to be much more happy then a a good part of humanity etc...

This is part of the answer I was expecting, The other part would be explaining why assigning values to just that quality. For example the moral or intellegence things could both perhaps be explained by some kind of utilitarianism. Some systems can of course be explained by a simple God said so, but it will cause problems if the system itself dont put the value of gods existance highest.

@CE: I only ditched utilistic values in the personal question...

If everyone is happy just with us listing who and what we value, then I can do. However, it will take an awfully long time, and I think a rule for deciding how valuable a life is would be much nicer.
Personally, I value things according to their importance to me - The reason I don't value your cats life is not because it's a cat, it's because it will almost certainly never do anything remotely useful to me. Sorry, cat.
For this reason, I value all human life a good deal. However, that's not just an arbitrary decision, it's because I recognize that humans are well equipped to chose to do right and to make the world better, and to act as one to force large changes about. When I write letters twice a week petitioning for the release of a prisoner of conscience in Sri Lanka, it is not just because of his species, but because I know how to work as a group to help other groups to change the world to be better so that I can enjoy it more. I am being selfish.
So it is entirely possible that, had I been born in an alternate universe (which I don't believe in, BTW ) I would, as a rule, value cats more than humans.
Via the same reasoning, I value my parents and girlfriend more than most people. They have even more potential and likelihood to make me happy.

The more interesting question is: Is there a value to a life which does not change from individual to individual? Tying in to my (at the moment) somewhat shaky argument in the secular rule thread, I would say that if one believes in God then one can assign a value easily to all life. If God likes it, it's valuable. But is there anything objective for us agnostics etc to judge value by which disregards our individual opinions. And if there is, is it useful at all?

@Littiz: So are you saying that we should assign moral values to what provokes emotions? What provokes emotions are of course rather difficult to apply more generarly. Or are you saying that the question itself is invalid and irrelevant and that I should go out and find myself a woman and some nice music?

Originally posted by frogus

The more interesting question is: Is there a value to a life which does not change from individual to individual? Tying in to my (at the moment) somewhat shaky argument in the secular rule thread, I would say that if one believes in God then one can assign a value easily to all life. If God likes it, it's valuable. But is there anything objective for us agnostics etc to judge value by which disregards our individual opinions. And if there is, is it useful at all?

Its the answer to this question im looking for, Or if no such value exist by itslef, wich one should we choose and why.

@Littiz: So are you saying that we should assign moral values to what provokes emotions? What provokes emotions are of course rather difficult to apply more generarly. Or are you saying that the question itself is invalid and irrelevant and that I should go out and find myself a woman and some nice music?

It would do you good, surely!!
And the same applies for me...
music is easier to access though, ehehehe, always on the player!
No, it was my answer, really.
If you place life on a higher ground, then respect for it
should come naturally.
For it and its rules.. so when you feel the sense of loss for a
dead one, you'll improve the sense of caring for the living.
No need to rate the emotions, just note that *some* emotions
are only "provoked" by living beings.
This is enough to DEFINE them all, IMHO.
Truths are so simple at times...
Am I wrong?

@Littiz: While this can work for an individual its difficult to make this a moral standard for a society, since emotions are so connected to individuals. But on a personal level I think you have a point.

Since not much is going on at this exact moment, I wanted to respond to this reply, Dottie:

I understand this, but I cant really see how it connects to my question. If you're not argueing that all connections between humans are really caused by peer preassure and fear of lonliness, wich I find highly unlikely.

Well what Ive wanted to talk about, but held out because I didnt want to change the original topic too much, was do you feel that some connections of humans are caused by peer pressure? I know not all are, thats rediculous to think that all are, but do you feel that there are connections through peer pressure, Dottie?

Originally posted by Tybaltus

Well what Ive wanted to talk about, but held out because I didnt want to change the original topic too much, was do you feel that some connections of humans are caused by peer pressure? I know not all are, thats rediculous to think that all are, but do you feel that there are connections through peer pressure, Dottie?

That peer pressure, nationalism etc can cause a sense of understanding between people i find very likely. I think a reason why enviroments and cultures that keep people close together and alienates everyone else are so common is that they makes the persons who are part of them feel closer to each other.