Define value, and then explain why others should adopt your view of 'value' in lieu of religious moral law?

Question

Value is usually defined as something that is assigned worth due to what you can recive for it. Somethings are said to have intrinsic value or worth. What is it that makes life, in and of itself, valuable? How can I say that your life has enough worth for me to go out of my way and establish common ground?

This question is for sophic atheists. That is to say, atheists that believe we should still respect and love each other and value human life regardless of the fact that there is no real intrinsic value in "social good". Fear of the government is weak, especially in our current democratic mindset. It is not enough incentive for me to refrain from killing homosexuals (who can be seen as socially unproductive) and euthinising the old.

Therefore, can you provide a system which assigns proper value to humanity outside of government and so-called "do-good" mentalities (i.e., "We should just love each other!" Bull, I should kill you, take your land, and make my own family.)

'Social animal' indicates that we have a system in which we operate that has heirarchy and has a herd instinct that seeks to preserve the species.

I agree, we are social animals, but as such, why are we supposed to be interested in helping the poor (which is a strain on resources), equality for all men (when slavery is more productive, as we see in the social animal, the red ant that enslaves the black ant [or vice versa]) and things like art and music and the like? Why do we place value in these things? If we are pure social animals, then all this junk we spout about freedom and equality is rot, and there is no real reason other than governmental authority as to why the intelligent and capable should not take over and instate laws which ban everthing that is not productive to society(homosexuality, the poor, the old, and anything that disagrees with the current regime.)

Granted, other familial preservation is an aspect of "common human good". However, this is not "common good". If my family is stronger, my family can beat your brother or family into either submission or death.

Now, how can anyone call me hateful or evil? How can you say value is dependent on personal perception ALONE and yet claim I am hateful? If my perception is simply different from yours, you can only blame me for being different. Therefore, the moment you call me hateful (which implys 'evil') your argument collapses.

Elizabeth W makes a good point in saying that a common theme can be found through all religions and cultures (the golden rule).

THAT is my point. Almost all cultures up until the primarily (but not exclusively) Western idea of atheism has agreed that there is some law or rule of behavior that exists outside of itself.

My question is what do atheists propose. Social graces only go as far as the ones who are not in power. If I could work my way up into power, I could dictate how things are run and enslave humanity, and while you may not like it and fight me for it, you cannot in good conscience call me evil, just thought you don't happen to like what I'm doing to you.

And shame on ANY atheist who uses the word 'ethics' (moral principles, as of an individual). If my 'ethics' dictate that my race/family/group should be on a higher level than you, WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME I'M WRONG!?!?! Ethics, according to most of atheists that even have answered this question, are relative.

Answer 1

It benefits us all in general to live in a society where we generally treat each other according to the golden rule which I believe can be naturalistically justified. It would be a miserable world few would want to live in if we all went around taking what we wanted by force and killing people we disagree with. You can't expect others to refrain from treating you in ways you would not like if you treat others in a bad manner. You can't for example steal from your neighbor and expect they won't turn around and steal from you back or exact some revenge. A social contract that follows from the idea we must be willing to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated can be nontheistically derived. Many cultures and different religions have their own version of this indicating it has ocurred as something beneficial to human across cultures. If you want your life to be worth someone going out of their way for than you have to expect that you will need to return the favor. I believe societies evolved because they offered us an evolutionary advantage over a law of the jungle approach to life. By banding together and creating structure that benefits all including the old, poor, weak, and different we discovered we achieved more and had more stablity and advantages.

Answer 2

None of these points prove that a big bang happened. All that they prove is that the universe is expanding, but so what? If someone believes in God these point don't disprove him. Who's to say that God didn't create the world from a center. The fact is, that there is no evidence that an atom, from nowhere, split and somehow caused this whole big chain of events that slowly developed the world. That is an interpretation of the observations. There is no evidence that world slowly developed. That too, is an interpretation. All there is is observations that imply certain conclusions, and these conclusions are based on how the world works today. So, we are assuming that the world always worked the same way, that if a ball is moving it must have been thrown or that if two organisms share DNA, it must mean that they are related through some common ancestor. However, absolute truths are scientific heresy, and rightly so. None of these conclusions have any direct evidence, there is no evidence that the ball was thrown, nor any evidence that two species have a common ancestor, only observations that support these conclusions. But, perhaps one could make a second, opposing conclusion that is supported by all of these observations. Let us say that God created the world, and I'm not saying that he did, but let us say so, perhaps when he created the world he created the ball already moving and never having been thrown. Perhaps, he created the world always expanding because it is better this way. Furthermore, why would he create different animals in completely different ways? Wouldn't you think that that is extra work? He created an animal, say, with lungs, and so he created another animals with lungs. Why? Because it works. He used the same DNA code to make the same proteins that lead to the same conclusions where they work most efficiently. In other cases he used a different code to serve for other purposes, say, underwater breathing, i.e gills. And perhaps, all those fossils that we see, that seem to link the transfer from one specie to another are prototypes. After all, it is only us that say that God must be perfect. But who is to say that he really has to be perfect. Only amazing.

Answer 3

the christians are the ones that came over here to america and killed and stole land, not atheists.

now, why don't we kill eachother, what's the value? 2 things, kin selection and reciprocal altruism. the first instinct in a social environment is survival of the genes. this means that the closer the being is to your genetic makeup (e.g. children, sisters, etc.) the stronger the bond. this is found as a constant throughout the animal kingdom wherein the animals live in groups or packs. then there is reciprocal altruism, the scratch my back now and i'll have yours later, idea. if you think about all the unethical things that we do they are all selfish and not taking into consideration the needs of others. if you live in a group and you go about killing the members then you are destroying both aspects of human ethics, kin and quid pro quo. Finally, if you think that homosexuals are socially unproductive look at art, decor, design, and all things that mold culture because it wasn't a mechanic named hank, ok? and furthermore, instead of throwing babies away straights should be giving them to gays to raise. gays are NOT socially unprductive but can be seen as mother nature's way of trying to slow down the massive over-reproducing of the straights.


EDIT:
just because i see a man raping a woman and i'm not involved doesn't mean i can't be disgusted by it and think it morally wrong. where in the bible does it say you can't rape someone? if i see some race of people slaughtering and killing another race i can be offended and find it morally wrong. where in the bible does it say that one race cannot kill another? if i see a man married to a little girl and know that he is trying to get her pregnant, i can find that repulsive. where in the bible does it say that a man must wait until she is 16 or 18 or whatever? Most of our ethics and morals have nothing to do with god or religion. they are ways that we work well with eachother, why else do you think that all these early religions came up with the same idea of morality, but COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GODS? The jews went on homicidal rampages and eradicated entire civilizations, according the the bible. where are the ethics there? jesus never said that was a bad thing. apparently it was GOOD!

we take care of our sick and elderly and our harmlessly deviant people because the bond outweighs the cost. if it still cost too much time and would lead to the destruction of the community we would still set retarded children out in the woods to die.

but do tell us where god condemns racial cleansing and rape and paedophilia? in any religion.

"do unto others as you would have them do to you," is the golden rule and is precisely what i mentioned earlier, reciporcal altruism. it's a man-made name for an animals concept.

Answer 4

Islam in the Quran says you can married women who don't have a mensus, doesn't say regular mensus, but no mensus at at and since there were no hystereconmies, this implies the VERY YOUNG as well as the VERY OLD.

My values go against the very young.

How about yours. Do YOUR VALUES and MORALS allow for the marriage to 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 year old girls?

And I'd apply my values to my religion if it could EVERY be proved God or Jesus did the same thing and had MARTIAL RELATIONS with someone that young.

I've already catagorically stated, that would make me go Atheist.

The Quran PROVES IT and further states to DIVORCE such a girl you have to wait 3 months to make sure she's not pregnant before you can divorce her.

NO God that allows the mating of Young Girls is a good God! If that's what religion is about, then there should be no religion.

Answer 5

Read some Evolutionary Psychology, humans are social animals there are myriad social goods.

And that is completely seperate as to what we should do as sentient and moral beings.

edit:

Try to understand what a 'social animal' is. It means we live in groups and it is not about the survival of the strongest, it is about co-operation, all benefit if the group benefits.

Try reading up on game theory as it applies to human societies.

Edit:

the fundamental error you are making is believing ethics are top down when in fact they are bottom up.

Answer 6

NOTHING has intrinsic "value". All value is dependent upon the perceptions of individual people. Your hate is based on your arrogance and ignorance, which is obvious in your discussion about "value" in the first place.

Here's to hoping you really gain some real education and wisdom.

_()_

Answer 7

Values are simply ideas that are instilled in us that we continue to use and maybe pass on to others. Now having said that the phrase "pass onto others" means to me without forcing my view onto others rather it be morals or values. I would rather live my life knowing that I am an attraction and not a promoter.

Answer 8

Justin I sincerely hope that some group does not decide that atheists are "unproductive" or "need euthanizing".
Your life has no value in itself. The values I might or might not assign to your life or mine are irrelevant to the TRUTH.
Jesus said "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE, no man comes to the Father but by me."
There's value. Someone gave their life already for YOU and me.

Answer 9

"How can I say that your life has enough worth for me to go out of my way and establish common ground?"

Because you also value your own life. Societal values are really about protecting ourselves, obviously that is hard to accomplish if you have a state of anarchy.

Answer 10

Because natural consequences abound. If you kill me, my brother will definitely kill you and your family. It's a natural consequence, so why not agree to not kill each other for the sake of humanity?

I don't have to value your life to not want to kill you. I do value mine though.