By which standard do we determine which forms of life are worth valuing and saving versus those that we choose to kill or allow to be killed? Complexity and intelligence? Usefulness to humans? Arbitrary cultural values?
Not only this but based on what do you determine this for yourself and what standard should we use as humans?
2007-10-25 16:57:37 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
First let us get one thing straight: we have the ideal that all sentient life is valuable but the reality is that we do not have that as a true conviction so we do not largely behave in that way. So I see your question as basically an attempt to resolve that contradiction. You want some means or standards by which you can determine what is valuable and what is not.
To talk of standards is a mistake, I think. Also talk of what is "worth valuing" is another. Rather we have to see what we personally will accept and what we will not. To invoke a standard or a rule is a way in which we fool ourselves into avoiding confronting the unpleasant reality of our decisions and acts.
I think each person has to determine for themselves by looking to their conscience and not to their intellect (ie some intellectual idea of what is OK and what is not).
For example to live we have to kill some forms of life. Are we personally willing to accept others butchering chickens, cows pigs on our behalf so that we can eat them? Should they die for us? Many cannot and can only accept killing and harvesting plant life.
2007-10-25 17:44:59 · answer #1 · answered by uee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question is impossible to answer without first coming to a conclusion about weather or not life (hence humans) came from a steaming, bubbling primordial swamp.
If so, we are no better, except by chance, than the flew virus. since we have the strange ability to chose between right and wrong and frequently chose the latter, we are probably worse and chance(what ever that is) should be our God.(Gamblers should be saluted for having discovered this.)
Also, if we came from the swamp there actually is no right and wrong, except those, which we have invented. Therefor you can do what ever you want and kill who ever, what ever you want, as long as you don't get caught.
Right?
On the other hand, if you believe the marvel of life came from a marvelous being you should start by going to this marvelous being to find out what the being says about various life forms and their value.
Gypsy Priest
2007-10-26 00:34:48 · answer #2 · answered by Gypsy Priest 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Human implies a very specific biological entity. Quite honestly I do not see any reason to think that this biological entity is of any more worth than any other as a pure biological animal. What makes humans valuable is that they are persons with distinct rational capacities that enables us to ask such questions of great importance. Animals (non-rational) and plants are of value insofar as they are useful to humans in diverse ways such as aesthetic, nutritional, ecological, etc. The values do vary from culture to culture however I see no direct reason to infer from that fact that they arbitrary, or that one culture can not have a better idea than another. Though the whole argument for cultural ethical relativism is another question.
2007-10-26 00:05:13 · answer #3 · answered by spartanmike 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you think in terms of survival of the human species one must consider how we will continue to exist. On an historical level if we look into the Donner party of September 7, 1857,
who became stranded in southern Utah in a snow storm.
There was no plant life to forge or animals to hunt. What were they to do? As it turned out many of them starved to death a circumstance no one had any control over. In the long run the people who were left had to resort to cannibalism. Was it a question of the value of life or survival. Sometimes philosophy is not a wise choice when it comes to the Human race.I am not sure if anyone has come to an alternative for
the consumption of animals or vegetables for humankind.
2007-10-26 00:52:45 · answer #4 · answered by rocky 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I find this has a lot to do with your situation in life. We in the west have a lot of comforts. We do not have to worry about food, water, shelter so we are free to worry about more esoteric things like the value of life.
Take a look at the third world and you will see a different story. Look back in history at what the Romans did to animals in their control.
If we as a culture value life, than it may extend to other forms of life. If not then we have a general disregard for our own life as well as other forms of life.
2007-10-26 00:08:13 · answer #5 · answered by Dr. Wu 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is obvious..we don't care..
Humans kill everything they touch..
We have no regard for life..only money.
There is nothing that will change Humans..Greed is what has been brainwashed into us from virtually the start..
There is nothing except facing death itself that will change all the shallow, selfish people of this world...even then..I doubt if that will change them..
2007-10-26 00:35:04 · answer #6 · answered by Entity of Life 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first question would be that of accountability. To whom are we accountable for what we do?
If we think we're only accountable to ourselves, we can rationalize anything. If we think we're accountable to God, then we ought to understand that God is going to see through our self justifications.
According to Christianity, we are to be stewards of the land, allowed to use the fruits, but accountable to God for misuse.
2007-10-26 05:24:58 · answer #7 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It comes with the maturity,reflexion, piety, patience and careful examination.
2007-10-26 00:11:41 · answer #8 · answered by LeBlanc 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're helping others, then you're life is valuable. If you're living for yourself, you're worthless.
2007-10-26 00:02:53 · answer #9 · answered by maisie24 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
obviously different people have different gauges.
2007-10-26 00:27:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋