# Is Each and Every Individual Human Life Sacred?



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

I post this in response to my previously poorly worded thread regarding self worth.  My apologies.


----------



## JB0704 (May 29, 2013)

Yes......unless, or course, you are a worthless human being


----------



## NE GA Pappy (May 29, 2013)

What if you are just useless, like Billy McDurdellson?


----------



## Four (May 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I post this in response to my previously poorly worded thread regarding self worth.  My apologies.



I hate to be a nit picker / bubble burster, because i did like your previous thread... 

But Sacred isvery nearly a synonym for holiness, and has strong religious connotation / implications. So because of this only, i'll have to say No.


----------



## stringmusic (May 29, 2013)

Yes!


----------



## NE GA Pappy (May 29, 2013)

Four said:


> I hate to be a nit picker / bubble burster, because i did like your previous thread...
> 
> But Sacred isvery nearly a synonym for holiness, and has strong religious connotation / implications. So because of this only, i'll have to say No.



so what is the atheist/agnostic way to word this question?  


Is every life valuable?  does that work


----------



## Four (May 29, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> so what is the atheist/agnostic way to word this question?
> 
> 
> Is every life valuable?  does that work



Its actually a rough one, i do kind of get what he is looking to ask.

In Christianity, every human life is intrinsically valuable and precious, because each human life is created by god in gods image, giving our species something above and beyond any other living being. Without a position like that, does each human life have intrinsic value above and beyond any other animal? What would make it precious/valuable/worthy. 

Thats my shot at it....


----------



## NE GA Pappy (May 29, 2013)

so what is your answer?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

Four said:


> I hate to be a nit picker / bubble burster, because i did like your previous thread...
> 
> But Sacred isvery nearly a synonym for holiness, and has strong religious connotation / implications. So because of this only, i'll have to say No.



I'll grant you that.  How does 'inviolable' grab you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

Four said:


> Its actually a rough one, i do kind of get what he is looking to ask.
> 
> In Christianity, every human life is intrinsically valuable and precious, because each human life is created by god in gods image, giving our species something above and beyond any other living being. Without a position like that, does each human life have intrinsic value above and beyond any other animal? What would make it precious/valuable/worthy.
> 
> Thats my shot at it....



That's very close.  And if it does how do you validate it?


----------



## drippin' rock (May 29, 2013)

Sacred to whom?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

It depends on the Potter.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Sacred to whom?



To you brother.


----------



## Four (May 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll grant you that.  How does 'inviolable' grab you?



oooohhh good word!


----------



## Four (May 30, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> so what is your answer?



I think i did a reasonable job attempting to answer the line of questioning in the original post



Four said:


> Worth /  Value is a subjective concept.
> 
> Personally, i like myself and my life. I have a great time, and its even more valuable because i know it's limited. The same reasons why they say to enjoy your family while you have them, or enjoy your childhood while it lasts... i just apply this to all the time i have alive.
> 
> In terms of the human species I see it has a lot more value relative to other species. The emotional, mental capabilities far outpace others.  People are ingenious, amazing, clever, adaptable. I enjoy conversations with them, drinking with them, hunting with them, etc.



Just to amend.. now, do i think we have  a soul? or some sort of qualities or attributes that were given/achieved above and beyond our culture and biology? No.

From an emotional level i'm very much against killing... i'm against the death penalty, i'm against torture, I'm against war / military.


----------



## JB0704 (May 30, 2013)

Four said:


> .. now, do i think we have  a soul? or some sort of qualities or attributes that were given/achieved above and beyond our culture and biology? No.



I have difficulty understanding how anybody looks at nature and does not recognize that there is something which sets us apart.  We dominate the landscape in a way no other species ever has, and we did not accomplish this through physical prowess.  It seems evolutionary change trends to strength, but our path is completely different than every other species.

Intelligence, if by evolutionary means, should not be limited to one species, as the conditions which produced us, also produced everything else.

I see the soul as what seperates us, and gives us value above other species.  Our self-awareness, and our social tendencies which value not only ourselves, but others.



Four said:


> From an emotional level i'm very much against killing... i'm against the death penalty, i'm against torture, I'm against war / military.



I get that you are a pacifist, but what is the philosophy behind your position.

(I'm against the death penalty and torture as well)


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I have difficulty understanding how anybody looks at nature and does not recognize that there is something which sets us apart.  We dominate the landscape in a way no other species ever has, and we did not accomplish this through physical prowess.  It seems evolutionary change trends to strength, but our path is completely different than every other species.
> 
> Intelligence, if by evolutionary means, should not be limited to one species, as the conditions which produced us, also produced everything else.
> 
> I see the soul as what seperates us, and gives us value above other species.  Our self-awareness, and our social tendencies which value not only ourselves, but others.





This would be a good thread topic!


----------



## Four (May 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I have difficulty understanding how anybody looks at nature and does not recognize that there is something which sets us apart.  We dominate the landscape in a way no other species ever has, and we did not accomplish this through physical prowess.  It seems evolutionary change trends to strength, but our path is completely different than every other species.
> 
> Intelligence, if by evolutionary means, should not be limited to one species, as the conditions which produced us, also produced everything else.
> 
> I see the soul as what separates us, and gives us value above other species.  Our self-awareness, and our social tendencies which value not only ourselves, but others.



I didnt say that there isn't something that set's us apart, we're certainly pretty unique as a species, for reasons that i dont think have to be said. That being said there are many unique species out there, amazing things like unlimited cell regeneration, vast speed, flight, strength, robustness, and just weirdness. Of course I still think humans stand head and shoulder above that.. but i could be bias!

Also, intelligence isnt limited to one species, you can see our near ancestors are intelligent, as are other species. We're just the MOST intelligent. You wouldn't take the fastest animal in the world and say no other animal has speed, just because it's the fastest.

I see the concept of a soul as a bit of a cop-out.. but i see the god concept as that as well. We can all tell that the human species is unique in many ways, and instead of looking for the reasons, we attribute it to an undetectable invisible entity called soul. Sure, many scientists do something similar (dark matter anyone?) but they'll dig for evidence for it, and if they cant find any, or evidence to the contrary, they get rid of it.




JB0704 said:


> I get that you are a pacifist, but what is the philosophy behind your position.
> 
> (I'm against the death penalty and torture as well)



If we're calling me a pacifist, let me clarify that i'm not a nonviolence type pacifist, I see defense as moral.

My morality centers around the Non-Agression principle/axiom


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 30, 2013)

Four 
you bring out so many good points I have to pick and choose which ones to discuss.  Let me ask you this.

Per your link NAP 
"The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate."

How do you square this with evolution as an origin for humanity in that they seem to me to be diametrically opposed with regards to aggression.?

Also regarding this statement from the same link:
"Supporters generally argue that NAP only applies to humans, because humans generally have a free will and a self-conscious and rational mind, as well as a moral understanding", what does the NAP attribute this "moral understanding" to?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 30, 2013)

Four said:


> oooohhh good word!




OK then for you, is each and every individual human life inviolable?  .......and why/why not?


----------



## Four (May 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Four
> you bring out so many good points I have to pick and choose which ones to discuss.  Let me ask you this.



yay! Maybe  we should have a thread on secular ethics?



SemperFiDawg said:


> Per your link NAP
> "The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate."
> 
> How do you square this with evolution as an origin for humanity in that they seem to me to be diametrically opposed with regards to aggression.?



Hmm, I don't quite see the problem that you see. Evolution is often about competition and adaption, not necessarily aggression. Evolution is just a method, Natural selection + gene mutation... I don't think the NAP has any thing to do with Evolution, besides evolution being the process in which us as a species are able to have the facilities to adhere to the NAP.



SemperFiDawg said:


> Also regarding this statement from the same link:
> "Supporters generally argue that NAP only applies to humans, because humans generally have a free will and a self-conscious and rational mind, as well as a moral understanding", what does the NAP attribute this "moral understanding" to?



Keep in mind you're quoting the sourced article, not my words! BUUT, i think any inherent "moral understanding" comes from empathy, which i assume is a selected trait for our species.

I think of it this way, if the species has the ability to form and adhere to contracts, and respect property rights, then they can be in the NAP.


----------



## Four (May 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK then for you, is each and every individual human life inviolable?  .......and why/why not?



Was my previous post not sufficient? This is a fairly hard question.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 30, 2013)

Four said:


> yay! Maybe  we should have a thread on secular ethics?



Sounds interesting.  Start it.





Four said:


> Hmm, I don't quite see the problem that you see. Evolution is often about competition and adaption, not necessarily aggression. Evolution is just a method, Natural selection + gene mutation... I don't think the NAP has any thing to do with Evolution, besides evolution being the process in which us as a species are able to have the facilities to adhere to the NAP.



When I think evolution, I think survival of the fittest as the primary selection process, hence aggression.



Four said:


> Keep in mind you're quoting the sourced article, not my words! BUUT, i think any inherent "moral understanding" comes from empathy, which i assume is a selected trait for our species.
> 
> I think of it this way, if the species has the ability to form and adhere to contracts, and respect property rights, then they can be in the NAP.



I don't buy that, but maybe you could enlighten me if you started that said thread.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 30, 2013)

Four said:


> Was my previous post not sufficient? This is a fairly hard question.



No.  I re-read your posts.  I think you talked around it, but did not tackle it head on.  Inviolable defined as 'never to be broken, infringed or dishonored.'    It's the first definition that pops up on Google and it seems without direct religious connotations per your preference.


----------



## Four (May 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  I re-read your posts.  I think you talked around it, but did not tackle it head on.  Inviolable defined as 'never to be broken, infringed or dishonored.'    It's the first definition that pops up on Google and it seems without direct religious connotations per your preference.



Ok, i'll give it another shot, and i'll try to be more specific.

Short answer, No.

Long answer:

1. Never to be Broken - If we're speaking of natural rights.. then i think i can get behind this, but that would open a 20lb can of worms about what are natural rights, etc.

2. Infringed - I see this much the same way i see #1. I do believe all humans have rights that should be infringed.

3. Dishonored - This is were i run into a problem... I don't think all humans have the right to be honored.. I may not initiate force, or aggress upon someone, but that doesnt mean i have a problem with loathing someone, or being condescending or disrespectful towards them.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 30, 2013)

Science says no. Everything else is simply weak minded individuals trying to feel better about themselves. Or they just took societies' word for it and never researched on their own.


----------



## hunter rich (May 30, 2013)

no...


----------



## JB0704 (May 30, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Everything else is simply weak minded individuals trying to feel better about themselves.


----------



## Four (May 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


>



Although not tactful, there is a thread of truth there. I've met people that will reject the entire premise of evolution simply because it discusts them to think of themselves as an animal. "I DON'T COME FROM NO MONKEY"


----------



## hunter rich (May 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK then for you, is each and every individual human life inviolable?  .......and why/why not?



From the World English Dictionary:

must not or cannot be transgressed, dishonored, or broken; to be kept sacred

There's that pesky word with its religious connotations...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 30, 2013)

Honestly to me, even if I were not a Christian, I would think it either has to be an 'all or none' proposition.  To me it couldn't be relative to how I personally feel.  I'm much to jaded for that.  I may judge Brother Four's life to be sacred because he's a thinker, or producer, or fits some other personal criteria I have for worth, but his inviolability would rise and fall based on my values over time.  Furthermore his inviolability would also hinge on where others place value and how those values change over time.  It very well may cost him his life depending on simply 'who' he is.  The same goes for me and you.  If the inviolability of each life is not anchored to something outside of ourselves, there will never be an end to racism, ethnic cleansing, and all of the other savageries  that has defined our history as well as our daily life.  And for those who would argue that it doesn't seem to have worked so far, I would argue it has worked in every place it has been tried.  The scars that we bear as both a species and individually are there exactly because inviolability was rejected.


----------



## JB0704 (May 30, 2013)

Four said:


> Although not tactful, there is a thread of truth there.



It was more the "weak minded" quality that bugged me.

For one, how can you define "strong minded?"  Is an atheist strong minded based on the fact that they refuse to have faith without concrete evidence, or is a believer "strong minded" because they can see beyond such hurdles using logic (regardless of the value an atheist would place on the conclusions).

How 'bout a fella tossing a goat into a volcano because he doesn't know any better?  Who decides the strength of that man's mind?  If he is unaware of developments to the contrary of his beliefs?

I would venture to guess there ahve been plenty of faiths that have believed all sorts of things through the years based on the information at hand, and the individual's assessment of the information.

Individual conclusions just don't strike me as parameters for determining "weak minded."  I would say an argument of greater value would be those folks who refuse to follow the trail for fear of what's at the other end, those who adhere to socialist ideology.....and those who cried when watching "The Notebook" would be much more accurate assessment of "weak minded," but, that is my opinion, and in no way can be accepted as the definition.


----------



## Four (May 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It was more the "weak minded" quality that bugged me.
> 
> For one, how can you define "strong minded?"  Is an atheist strong minded based on the fact that they refuse to have faith without concrete evidence, or is a believer "strong minded" because they can see beyond such hurdles using logic (regardless of the value an atheist would place on the conclusions).
> 
> ...



Sigh, i'm going to continue to play devil's advocate for a position i didn't propose  But here we go.

I think he's saying weak minded, because he sees someone that is unable to cope with the idea that they've are animals, and similar biology to apes (98% chimp!) as being weak minded. 

But who knows. Well i suppose he does, maybe he'll make an appearance.


----------



## JB0704 (May 30, 2013)

Four said:


> Sigh, i'm going to continue to play devil's advocate for a position i didn't propose  But here we go.



Sorry, man.  You were the one who responded to the eye roll.



Four said:


> I think he's saying weak minded, because he sees someone that is unable to cope with the idea that they've are animals, and similar biology to apes (98% chimp!) as being weak minded.



Understood.  But I don't understand how that one person's conclusion is weak minded.....from another angle, it is strong minded for looking outside the box.  Just a thought.  One man's weak mind is another's perseverance in the face of adversity.


----------



## Four (May 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Sorry, man.  You were the one who responded to the eye roll.



Eh, its my fault, i have a bad habit of assuming i know were people are coming from all the time, i'm often right, but sometimes look dumb.




JB0704 said:


> Understood.  But I don't understand how that one person's conclusion is weak minded.....from another angle, it is strong minded for looking outside the box.  Just a thought.  One man's weak mind is another's perseverance in the face of adversity.



Yea... if we're going to continue to tear this apart... I think a weak or strong mind is shown more from methodology rather than the conclusions. Of course, poor methodology yields more bad conclusions than good methodology. So there is a correlation.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 31, 2013)

I meant no offense. Perhaps ignorant of what biology teaches would have been more appropriate.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 31, 2013)

Four said:


> 2. Infringed - I see this much the same way i see #1. I do believe all humans have rights that should be infringed.


 
Do you mean "should not be infringed"


----------



## Four (May 31, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you mean "should not be infringed"



yes! Sorry


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 31, 2013)

Four said:


> yes! Sorry



Thought so, but wanted to be sure.  What are some of these rights you speak of?


----------



## stringmusic (May 31, 2013)

Four, how does the NAP work if someone is agressive towards you and you're defending yourself? Is it ok to abandon the NAP in this case?


----------



## Four (May 31, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Thought so, but wanted to be sure.  What are some of these rights you speak of?



The only positive rights are those from a parent to a child, the rest are property rights, starting with self-ownership.



stringmusic said:


> Four, how does the NAP work if someone is agressive towards you and you're defending yourself? Is it ok to abandon the NAP in this case?



The NAP is all about the non initiation of force. So if you initiate force, you've violated the NAP, and it someone else is allowed to stop you, with force.

The important part is that its the Non Aggression Principle, not non violence. Violence/force is acceptable in response to aggression.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 31, 2013)

Four said:


> The only positive rights are those from a parent to a child, the rest are property rights, starting with self-ownership.



It would seem that based on this, ones rights could be verrrrrrry narrow or verrrrrry broadly interpreted but relative just the same.  Am I wrong?


----------



## Four (May 31, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It would seem that based on this, ones rights could be verrrrrrry narrow or verrrrrry broadly interpreted but relative just the same.  Am I wrong?



In some ways its more narrow and in some ways its less so...

You have a right to your body, and the effect of your labor. This basically encompasses things like the right to NOT be raped, murdered, stolen from, etc. You don't have the right to other peoples property, or the effect of their labor(physical property). BUT since you own the effect of your labor, you not only own the physical effect, but any responsibilities. 

So if I buy a baseball, i'm exchanging money (voluntarily), which is a substitute for labor, for the baseball itself, which is the product of someone else s labor. Cool, we've now traded. Now if i throw that ball, i also "own" the affect of that thrown ball, so if i violate your property rights (i hit you in the head, or break a window) I also "own" that damage, and must restitute for it.

Sometimes this is called voluntarism.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 4, 2013)

It seems to me whatever invoulability there is in this system is tied disproportionately to economic worth.  Where does this leave those who are invalids and unable to work including children and the elderly?


----------



## Four (Jun 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It seems to me whatever invoulability there is in this system is tied disproportionately to economic worth.  Where does this leave those who are invalids and unable to work including children and the elderly?



The same as today, as supported by family / charity.

edit: just without using violence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 4, 2013)

Four you stated earlier that "Just to amend.. now, do i think we have a soul? or some sort of qualities or attributes that were given/achieved above and beyond our culture and biology? No."
But it seems to me that the very  fact you subscribe to NAP is an acknowledgement on your behalf that culture and biology simply aren't enough to answer all the questions and that there has to be something that transcends it all that glues it all together, this thing we call life.  Am I wrong in making that assessment?


----------



## Four (Jun 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Four you stated earlier that "Just to amend.. now, do i think we have a soul? or some sort of qualities or attributes that were given/achieved above and beyond our culture and biology? No."
> But it seems to me that the very  fact you subscribe to NAP is an acknowledgement on your behalf that culture and biology simply aren't enough to answer all the questions and that there has to be something that transcends it all that glues it all together, this thing we call life.  Am I wrong in making that assessment?



I stand by that i don't think there is anything supernatural at play. For instance, I could easily see finding a sufficiently advanced alien race that could be included in the NAP.  Or artificial intelligence. 

I understand were you're coming from, life is awe inspiringly complex, and exiting. But I just don't see that something supernatural is needed as the glue.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 4, 2013)

Four said:


> I stand by that i don't think there is anything supernatural at play. For instance, I could easily see finding a sufficiently advanced alien race that could be included in the NAP.  Or artificial intelligence.
> 
> I understand were you're coming from, life is awe inspiringly complex, and exiting. But I just don't see that something supernatural is needed as the glue.



They may have an even better principal.


----------



## Four (Jun 4, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> They may have an even better principal.



I hope so


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 5, 2013)

Better than love you neighbor as yourself?  Better than love your enemy?  I would suggest those principals are the highest attainable with regards to human relations.  Honestly?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 5, 2013)

Four said:


> Its actually a rough one, i do kind of get what he is looking to ask.
> 
> In Christianity, every human life is intrinsically valuable and precious, because each human life is created by god in gods image, giving our species something above and beyond any other living being. Without a position like that, does each human life have intrinsic value above and beyond any other animal? What would make it precious/valuable/worthy.
> 
> Thats my shot at it....



You know Four you gave an excellent answer above to not only exactly how Christians feel about the value of  life but why.  I've been wrestling for several days over the similarities and disparities between my beliefs and those of NAP which honestly I find common sensical and practically very appealing.   Additionally, despite some internal weaknesses, overall I think it a structurally sound doctrine that could justify itself inside a fairly static environment of like minded adherents.  

The critical weakness I see with regards to NAP  is the same as I would cite regarding any internally self validating concept, and that is the lack of external validity or authority.   I would argue that without an authority based outside of itself NAP becomes just another concept in the relativistic market of ideas, albeit one I find reasonable.  I plan to give it more thought, but I think this pretty much is the gist of my position.


----------



## Four (Jun 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Better than love you neighbor as yourself?  Better than love your enemy?  I would suggest those principals are the highest attainable with regards to human relations.  Honestly?



I think love is to important to be giving away to people that are your enemy, or people based off of how close they are geographically to you.


----------



## hunter rich (Jun 6, 2013)

Four said:


> I think love is to important to be giving away to people that are your enemy, or people based off of how close they are geographically to you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 6, 2013)

Four said:


> I think love is to important to be giving away to people that are your enemy, or people based off of how close they are geographically to you.


----------

