Is there any inherent value to (human) biological life?

[Buffalo Souljah]

Bakunin was known to have accused the Tsarist government in Russia "of destroy[ing] more than a million lives as a result of its brutish contempt for human rights and human life." Of course, the victims of the Soviet government's policies need not here be recounted (if this is even at all possible). The question is begged then, whether there is any discreet "purpose" to human life, a) on an individual basis & b) as a collective whole?

[gorillafuck]

No there is not any sort of inherent value to human life, but it is ethical to assign a value to it.

[leftace53]

No, I believe we only assign value to it because we are humans ourselves and have the perceived ability to reason.

[Buffalo Souljah]

No there is not any sort of inherent value to human life, but it is ethical to assign a value to it. It seems like that line of argument would inevitably lead us down the path towards infinite regress. I think our purposes require something more substantial than this. The same problem was encountered by mathematicians 60 years ago, when the attempt was made to create a complete and consistent system that could account for all mathematical propositions. The attempt hit a snag, of course, with the development of what became known as "Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem", which shook up the mathematical community, and whose effects are still felt today in a variety of disciplines.

I think, in order to bestow value upon biological life, we somehow have to work "from the ground up", and not use circular logic, which in itself won't get us anywhere.

[JazzRemington]

You are using "life" and "purpose" in a strange way, which is the source of your despair. If you were more specific, you'd see why the question "what is the purpose of life" is nonsense.

[BillKephart]

I think value questions should be focused on attributing value. A "value" requires a "valuer" if that makes sense.

Do you attribute value to human life? Then it has value. Most people at least value their own life. You can abstract that to valuing "human life" in general. In my view the struggle is largely between those who do value it and those who don't.

[Buffalo Souljah]

You are using "life" and "purpose" in a strange way, which is the source of your despair. If you were more specific, you'd see why the question "what is the purpose of life" is nonsense.


I suppose my question requires more context. The quote I provided of Bakunin's displays the sheer paradox inherent in, at least, Bolshevism's claim to be "supportive" of, or "in defense of" life ("pro-life", if you will), and one can see by comparing statistics of deaths related to corrupt political organizations in the two periods in Russia (pre and post-Revolutionary) that the famines related to collectivization in addition to death of political prisoners from either malnutrition, disease, execution, or a combination of these greatly outweigh the loss of human life under the pre-revolutionary government. My question is, then, whether the ends justify the means in such cases, whether Russian society benefited "on the whole" from the reforms imposed by the Soviet administration, or whether this is even a tenable argument, considering "the inherent dignity/value of human life", or something along those lines. My question is, then, whether it is possible for such consequences to be dispelled as "collateral" damage in the progress of the "general good," or whether such a "general good" even exists somewhere "out there".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I suppose my question requires more context. The quote I provided of Bakunin's displays the sheer paradox inherent in, at least, Bolshevism's claim to be "supportive" of, or "in defense of" life ("pro-life", if you will), and one can see by comparing statistics of deaths related to corrupt political organizations in the two periods in Russia (pre and post-Revolutionary) that the famines related to collectivization in addition to death of political prisoners from either malnutrition, disease, execution, or a combination of these greatly outweigh the loss of human life under the pre-revolutionary government.

That's easily resolved once you realise that humans are perfectly capable of hypocrisy - saying one thing and doing another.


My question is, then, whether the ends justify the means in such cases, whether Russian society benefited "on the whole" from the reforms imposed by the Soviet administration, or whether this is even a tenable argument, considering "the inherent dignity/value of human life", or something along those lines.

I fail to see how this question could be reasonably answered in the absence of time travel.


My question is, then, whether it is possible for such consequences to be dispelled as "collateral" damage in the progress of the "general good," or whether such a "general good" even exists somewhere "out there".

It doesn't exist "out there" so far as I can tell; rather, it is something that humans create for their own purposes, whether they be genuine or self-serving.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

this question alwasy comes up and its well stupid,

what on earth do you want us to say? Meaning is obviously something humans feel, an emotion or thought or whatever, so very clearly there is "meaning" to human life, as we feel this sort of thing every day. You did even when asking the question! :blink:

[Telemakus]

Value is not on life itself, but on the experiences had by the lifeform in question. Ending a life is not bad ipso facto, but many bad things can happen as a result - we lose whatever potential the life had, and great sadness will be felt (whether justified or not) as a result.

[MellowViper]

Were self aware manifestations of the universe. Of course we have intrinsic value. Our purpose is to give the universe a set of eyes and ears to come to an understanding about itself. If we fill the experience with murder, pain, and genocide, then that creates a curse on the universe. If we fill it with love, peace, compassion, knowledge, etc, then we bestow a blessing on the universe. I think most the value comes from consciousness, but without the biology, you can't have the human, conscious form.

[Decolonize The Left]

Were self aware manifestations of the universe. Of course we have intrinsic value. Our purpose is to give the universe a set of eyes and ears to come to an understanding about itself. If we fill the experience with murder, pain, and genocide, then that creates a curse on the universe. If we fill it with love, peace, compassion, knowledge, etc, then we bestow a blessing on the universe. I think most the value comes from consciousness, but without the biology, you can't have the human, conscious form.

There are so many holes in this statement it's hard to know where to begin. So I'll just list them off:
1) You have attributed personhood/will to the universe ("manifestations", "understanding about itself"), how do you justify this claim?
2) What is intrinsic value and how do you know it exists?
3) How can you claim to know our 'purpose,' let alone know we have one?
4) Why would the universe, if it was a being, need a set of eyes and ears in order to come to an understanding?
5) How can around 6 billion people on one planet orbiting one star (one among trillions at least) "fill the universe" with anything?
6) What is "consciousness?"

As far as I can tell, this sounds like a bunch of nonsense.

To answer the OP, there is no intrinsic value to human life or anything for that matter. "Value" is a human invention which we apply to concepts and which indirectly relates to actual things. Hence there is no such thing as "intrinsic value." There is value, as far as we are concerned, but the important question is not which value, but how the value is created and who is making the values.

- August