Do you think life has intrinsic value or relative value?

Question

I will give you my stand, but I want to know yours and why you take that stand.

I say Intrinsic value, my reasons are as follows:
Without intrinsic value attributed to life, no Human Rights could be establisted, without Human Rights no laws would be inexistance to violate and Justice could never exists.

If life is relative, then human rights are relative, and all law is relative, and all justice is relative. This would therefore allow society to enslave, rape, murder, kidnap, discriminate and violate others without any outrage. A person could not expect to have justice if one viewed life as relative.

Only a view that life has natural value could one attribute any true rights at all, and establish laws to protect those rights and the natural value of life. Further, justice requires that life have natural value, established rights and law in order to exist and function. It is therefore one of the foundation principles of real justice. Please reveal insight to me...

Thank you for your answers, I did mean just Human life. I also agree that the world and the world's history and many people view life and if it had relative value.

I personally believe all human life has natural value and therefore attribute Rights and Laws to define and protect such value. I do realize many others do not share these principles and this accounts for the extreme hostility seen around the world. Still thanks for your insight...

Answer 1

"This would therefore allow society to enslave, rape, murder, kidnap, discriminate and violate others without any outrage."

You're basically describing human history in a nutshell.

Justice, fairness, rights and laws come solely from the collective desires of the individuals within a society for these things for themselves. We as individuals make the connection that within a society we purchase these things for ourselves by extending the same to others.

History is replete with examples of failed societies that extended rights to some but not to others. This invariably leads to a part of society that cares nothing of the rights of others because they are given none.

And when these societies fall the underclass that was created feels completely justified in "enslaving, raping, murdering, kidnapping, discriminating and violating".

Answer 2

well yes and no you see everything is made of energy E=mc^2 and if we could break everything down their would be a single particle type substance that we could measure and since one thing could have more than the other thus if you consider one equal to the base you could generate a value system that would be universal in terms of perspective. However, since we are not only incapable of such but also that one might value something in a different way such that say a human has x number of universal value but a boat has 2x which one is more valuable well in the overall picture a boat would be but in a realistic approach the human would (excluding how the boat was assembled) this idea of value would then become subjective because as humans we see value in something that may have not actual value like love or pain (neglecting the hormones that cause these) Things are the way we as humans define them why is a foot twelve inches? not ten or nine so although we could define things in terms of particles or say the speed of light so we could tabulate everything it is what it is regardless so it's our perspective that allows us to define the world around us. And since humans think independent (for the most part) of each other we can see that perspectives would be different thus values also would be different.

Answer 3

It is relative. Just because we have come up with human rights to applied consistently across the board does not inherently mean that all lives have the same value. Of course, I contend that we do not yet have a consistent way to judge whose life has more value without actually being the person in question. So, although it is relative in my eyes, the value of any individual life aside from our own cannot be known...which means we define the value of our own life according to guesswork only...

Answer 4

You are applying human logic to a metaphysical question. I would say it is relative because everything you just mentioned above are strictly human issues, crime, rights, laws, and are not really associated with the concept of "Life" as in the entire living world of plants and animals. If human rights were relative as you've stated above, and everyone agreed that they were relative, then there would not BE any crime or human rights issues because every single one of us would treat others as we would like to be treated, because we would all recognize that, hey it's all relative. Crime and human rights violations are typically committed by those who feel their way of life has a higher intrinsic value than others, whereby giving them the right to offend.

Answer 5

I view (human) life as having intrinsic value. I believe that we are all sons and daughters of a supreme being and all deserve the opportunity to make choices and be happy.

In this world, though, it is relative. In parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East (to name just a few), life has very little value and is wasted with little or no thought and laws either are not enacted to protect everyone, or they are not enforced.

Answer 6

Life has intrinsic value to the organism. The value is so high, than no other object is worth more. Without life, the organism cannot function. Other objects, such as food, oxygen, etc, are valuable by relationship to the organism's life.

Answer 7

Life has no intrinsic value, but sentience does. If you're going to say that life has intrinsic value, you need to understand that everything you eat is alive. All the bacteria you kill with disinfectants, all the trees you make furniture from, they were all alive. Simply being a self-replicator does not give rights. Sentience, or the ability to think, does.

Answer 8

Intrinsic value is based on conscience. Relative is based on Survival. History shows that we have survived, thru dogmas, dictation and wars. E.g: Tigers feed their cubs by killing the calves of the lama. Darwin rules.