Some contradictions I would like to have explained.

[Czardas]

Because the value of a life is an objective quantity that can be scientifically measured.

I am not attempting to measure the value of a life; I am merely stating that some lives have value while others do not. For example, I haven't the foggiest idea how far away Betelgeuse is and can't even hazard a guess as to the distance. Moreover, I do not know whether it is larger than Alpha Centauri or not. However, I can state that it isn't within 50 miles of me and that it is larger than a common mouse. Similarly, I refrain from making comparisons between the value of two virtuous lives, but note that some have no value whatsoever, such as those of flagitious individuals.

Oh cool, I finally found the guy who determines whether people deserve to live or not!

We can call off the search for the person we can trust to implement policies that are potentially open to abuse (like communism, the death penalty, and benevolent dictatorship) -- it's PlatoByProxy! He watches the watchmen all right!

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

What you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch are only your interpretations of electrical signals sent by stimuli receptors to your brain. An artificial construct. What do we sentient beings have besides thought, and the mind?

I'm just saying that you can't construct arguments which treat value as if it's something out there that can be measured.

[Hayteria]

Again, that's not forming a "new human life" though, like the combination of DNA from sperm and egg cells do. Not that I believe in that philosophy, but it's better to refute that approach directly than just straw-man it as belief in souls.

There's no difference in complexity between my skin cells (which die all the time), and a zygote. Why is there a moral difference between the two? The "new human life" argument is totally arbitrary and has no justification as an imposed condition. It's just added so that the argument against abortion "works", kinda sorta not really.

The issue being raised isn't so much about the "complexity" as the "combination of parental genetic material"; again I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to straw-man it as being about something it isn't necessarily about, like souls.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The issue being raised isn't so much about the "complexity" as the "combination of parental genetic material"; again I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to straw-man it as being about something it isn't necessarily about, like souls.

That argument doesn't even make sense though. Why the hell does it matter that the zygote is a combination of parental genetic material. Besides, that same argument applies equally well to the DNA of the cells in my body. Theirs is every bit as much a combination of my parents' DNA as a zygote's is.

[PlatoByProxy]

The same can be said about humanity in general.

True, but not to the same extent. In any event, there are some exceptions to this general rule and an effort should be made to cleanse humanity of its impurer elements.

What about criminals who write books from their jail cells, like Stanley Tookie Williams?

Books whose source lies in the perturbed thoughts of a criminal mind are imbued with certain unfavorable aspects of their creator and should be banned. Such works can corrupt the minds of the individuals exposed to them. On the other hand, books which are bland enough to obscure the moral degradation of their authors lack a certain eclat and could easily have been written by another.

Who are you to judge what value their life has?

I am a man aided by reason and a sound philosophy.

Such as countries that get falsely accused of ties to Al-Queda or posession of WMD?

Most, if not all, countries in the world are unjust, including those to which you allude.

The same can be said for people for whom having unwanted children stopped them from implementing their ideas.

If such people were to exist, they would be guided by their spirit to pursue abstract knowledge rather than succumb to their desire to copulate. No, the only man whose ideas are just and good is the wise philosopher -- such an individual would, by definition, lack the impulse to fornicate unnecessarily. Therefore, the situation you describe cannot exist.

[Samatolian City-States]

What you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch are only your interpretations of electrical signals sent by stimuli receptors to your brain. An artificial construct. What do we sentient beings have besides thought, and the mind?

I'm just saying that you can't construct arguments which treat value as if it's something out there that can be measured.

True, but there are many things which can't be accurately measured.

[Czardas]

What you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch are only your interpretations of electrical signals sent by stimuli receptors to your brain. An artificial construct. What do we sentient beings have besides thought, and the mind?

I'm just saying that you can't construct arguments which treat value as if it's something out there that can be measured.

Technically, as value is an economic term, it can be measured.

The value of a T-shirt, for instance, is about $20, since that's what you pay for it. The value of a human life, as I've already mentioned, is about $5 million. (source: I saw it in the New York Times Magazine, a month ago maybe.)

I'm not sure how much an embryo is worth; you can obviously sell them to scientific institutes and the like for research, but I suspect they go for a good deal less than a living human being.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The same can be said about humanity in general.

True, but not to the same extent. In any event, there are some exceptions to this general rule and an effort should be made to cleanse humanity of its impurer elements.

What about criminals who write books from their jail cells, like Stanley Tookie Williams?

Books whose source lies in the perturbed thoughts of a criminal mind are imbued with certain unfavorable aspects of their creator and should be banned. Such works can corrupt the minds of the individuals exposed to them. On the other hand, books which are bland enough to obscure the moral degradation of their authors lack a certain eclat and could easily have been written by another.

Who are you to judge what value their life has?

I am a man aided by reason and a sound philosophy.

Such as countries that get falsely accused of ties to Al-Queda or posession of WMD?

Most, if not all, countries in the world are unjust, including those to which you allude.

The same can be said for people for whom having unwanted children stopped them from implementing their ideas.

If such people were to exist, they would be guided by their spirit to pursue abstract knowledge rather than succumb to their desire to copulate. No, the only man whose ideas are just and good is the wise philosopher -- such an individual would, by definition, lack the impulse to fornicate unnecessarily. Therefore, the situation you describe cannot exist.

If you were aided by sound philosophy, you would know that there is no basis on which to declare that the question "What is the value of life?" has any meaning at all. There's no justification in reason or in evidence that "value" is something that exists in the same way that electrons do.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

True, but there are many things which can't be accurately measured.

But value can't even really be said to exist. The "value" of a person or object is not a property of the person or object but rather a property of the mind of the observer. It's subjective. There is no "correct" quantity that can be objectively called the "value" of something.

[Czardas]

The same can be said for people for whom having unwanted children stopped them from implementing their ideas.

If such people were to exist, they would be guided by their spirit to pursue abstract knowledge rather than succumb to their desire to copulate. No, the only man whose ideas are just and good is the wise philosopher -- such an individual would, by definition, lack the impulse to fornicate unnecessarily. Therefore, the situation you describe cannot exist.

Only about 1% of the world's population (estimated) lacks sexual desire, while the number of great philosophers and artists and scientists exceeds that. Moreover, many such thinkers are driven in part by their passions and desires, while a good portion of the 1% suffers from mental illness precluding rational and cogent thought. And apparently, abstinence is not plausible for that 99%, although I'm not sure why exactly; it's probably a cultural thing to a large degree

[PlatoByProxy]

Technically, as value is an economic term, it can be measured.

The value of a T-shirt, for instance, is about $20, since that's what you pay for it. The value of a human life, as I've already mentioned, is about $5 million. (source: I saw it in the New York Times Magazine, a month ago maybe.)

I'm not sure how much an embryo is worth; you can obviously sell them to scientific institutes and the like for research, but I suspect they go for a good deal less than a living human being.

No, price is an economic term which refers to the monetary cost of an item. Value, however, is a much more versatile concept and can be imbued with moral considerations. Stating that I value honesty doesn't mean that I evaluate it in pecuniary terms; rather, it means that I find it to be a virtuous policy. Similarly, I can value an individual because of his justice and moral worth rather than his monetary contributions to the economy.

[Hayteria]

The issue being raised isn't so much about the "complexity" as the "combination of parental genetic material"; again I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to straw-man it as being about something it isn't necessarily about, like souls.

That argument doesn't even make sense though. Why the hell does it matter that the zygote is a combination of parental genetic material. Besides, that same argument applies equally well to the DNA of the cells in my body. Theirs is every bit as much a combination of my parents' DNA as a zygote's is.

I agree that it doesn't, but the point I keep emphasizing is that you were claiming that those who believe in protecting fetuses and embryos believes in souls, which isn't necessarily the case. What if it were the other way around, and that someone claimed that the reason people believe in protecting embryos and fetuses was the reason I referenced, even if someone else believes protecting them because they believe in souls and find that kind of reasoning nonsensical? Rather hypocritical of them, yeah, but that wouldn't justify misrepresenting their position.

[PlatoByProxy]

If you were aided by sound philosophy, you would know that there is no basis on which to declare that the question "What is the value of life?" has any meaning at all. There's no justification in reason or in evidence that "value" is something that exists in the same way that electrons do.

Obviously it can't exist as electrons do, for it is an abstract concept rather than a physical entity. Similarly, the number "nine" doesn't exist as electrons do, yet the statement that there are nine planets in the solar system is true (unless you wish to bicker about whether or not Pluto is a planet). Abstract concepts can be applied to physical reality in valid, concrete ways, numbers and value alike.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

No, the only man whose ideas are just and good is the wise philosopher

And this, children, is what we call an ad hominem fallacy.

such an individual would, by definition, lack the impulse to fornicate unnecessarily.

Because philosophers never succumb to base desires.

Therefore, the situation you describe cannot exist.

No, the situation can exist. There are many philosophers throughout history that have been less than "pure" if such a term as purity really means anything.

[Czardas]

Technically, as value is an economic term, it can be measured.

The value of a T-shirt, for instance, is about $20, since that's what you pay for it. The value of a human life, as I've already mentioned, is about $5 million. (source: I saw it in the New York Times Magazine, a month ago maybe.)

I'm not sure how much an embryo is worth; you can obviously sell them to scientific institutes and the like for research, but I suspect they go for a good deal less than a living human being.

No, price is an economic term which refers to the monetary cost of an item. Value, however, is a much more versatile concept and can be imbued with moral considerations. Stating that I value honesty doesn't mean that I evaluate it in pecuniary terms; rather, it means that I find it to be a virtuous policy. Similarly, I can value an individual because of his justice and moral worth rather than his monetary contributions to the economy.

Since moral value is even more subjective than monetary value, it's a practically useless term in any kind of argument, since your opponent can just say "I disagree with your concept of moral value since mine is different", leaving you at an impasse.

[Indoslavokia]

Those on the right, particulaly the 'Right to lifers', please explain why you judge a bunch of cells to be worth protesting for, but not the folks on death row or your nations enemies?

The people on death row made their choices in life to commit the crimes that put them on death row. The bunch of cells will eventually grow into a living human; I don't find it fair to deprive that bunch of cells the opportunity to screw up just like the criminals did.

Surely with some education or some dialogue such people could be as much benifit as a newborn? So why reduce yourself to the level of a barbarian and kill for the sake of your emotions?

I don't. In face, I condemn those who die needlessly in the fight for abortion.

And for those that spout religion why not heed the 'Turn the other cheek,' 'Judge not lest ye be judged,' or 'though shalt not kill/murder' passages?.

'Turn the other cheek' and all that has nothing to do about preaching your religion.

[Kobrania]

And for those that spout religion why not heed the 'Turn the other cheek,' 'Judge not lest ye be judged,' or 'though shalt not kill/murder' passages?.

'Turn the other cheek' and all that has nothing to do about preaching your religion.[/quote]
I was just saying those to those who use holytexts to promote the taking of life forcefully.

[PlatoByProxy]

Only about 1% of the world's population (estimated) lacks sexual desire, while the number of great philosophers and artists and scientists exceeds that. Moreover, many such thinkers are driven in part by their passions and desires, while a good portion of the 1% suffers from mental illness precluding rational and cogent thought. And apparently, abstinence is not plausible for that 99%, although I'm not sure why exactly; it's probably a cultural thing to a large degree

I refer only to philosophers, as they alone demonstrate the proper mindset to exercise authority benevolently over the tumultuous mass of humanity. If they receive a proper education, they will yearn to accumulate knowledge and wisdom rather than yielding to their baser desires. However, they should reproduce with other exemplary specimens (at a propitious moment) so that their progeny might one day assume their role.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The people on death row made their choices in life to commit the crimes that put them on death row. The bunch of cells will may eventually grow into a living human;

Fixed.

I don't find it fair to deprive that bunch of cells the opportunity to screw up just like the criminals did.

And I find it absurd that you're apply the concept of fairness to something that has no consciousness. Just another case of the brain's tendency to over-anthropomorphize.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I refer only to philosophers, as they alone demonstrate the proper mindset to exercise authority benevolently over the tumultuous mass of humanity. If they receive a proper education, they will yearn to accumulate knowledge and wisdom rather than yielding to their baser desires. However, they should reproduce with other exemplary specimens (at a propitious moment) so that their progeny might one day assume their role.

You're making far too many unjustifiable assumptions about the nature of philosophers. Methinks this is a case of the whole "My profession is filled with only people that are upstanding and moral." syndrome. Philosophers are not inherently moral people. Get off your high horse.

[PlatoByProxy]

Since moral value is even more subjective than monetary value, it's a practically useless term in any kind of argument, since your opponent can just say "I disagree with your concept of moral value since mine is different", leaving you at an impasse.

Your opponent could disagree with anything you say -- he might even insist that the sky is red, thereby leaving you at an impasse. Being right takes precedence over converting an obstinate debater.

[Czardas]

Only about 1% of the world's population (estimated) lacks sexual desire, while the number of great philosophers and artists and scientists exceeds that. Moreover, many such thinkers are driven in part by their passions and desires, while a good portion of the 1% suffers from mental illness precluding rational and cogent thought. And apparently, abstinence is not plausible for that 99%, although I'm not sure why exactly; it's probably a cultural thing to a large degree

I refer only to philosophers, as they alone demonstrate the proper mindset to exercise authority benevolently over the tumultuous mass of humanity.

You're mixing them up with me. <.<

If they receive a proper education, they will yearn to accumulate knowledge and wisdom rather than yielding to their baser desires.

what determines whether a desire is base or not?

However, they should reproduce with other exemplary specimens (at a propitious moment) so that their progeny might one day assume their role.

but... but... what if they're gay or something? huh?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Your opponent could disagree with anything you say -- he might even insist that the sky is red, thereby leaving you at an impasse. Being right takes precedence over converting an obstinate debater.

Because there definitely is an objective right and wrong. Morality is exactly like mathematics and physics. Oh wait.

[Hayteria]

True, but not to the same extent. In any event, there are some exceptions to this general rule and an effort should be made to cleanse humanity of its impurer elements.

So at what threshold do you set a human being's value equal to zero?

Books whose source lies in the perturbed thoughts of a criminal mind

What exactly is so special about a "criminal mind" that inherently represents itself in their books? This kind of self-riteousness is absurd if you mean it.

are imbued with certain unfavorable aspects of their creator and should be banned.

So I guess Mein Kampf should be banned, since there's supposedly no value in looking into the writings of historically significant people with unfavorable traits?

Such works can corrupt the minds of the individuals exposed to them.

The same could be said for depraved entertainment not created by criminals on death row. Again, what exactly is so special about "criminal minds"? If the circumstances in our lives were significantly different, we may have ended up committing crimes ourselves.

On the other hand, books which are bland enough to obscure the moral degradation of their authors lack a certain eclat and could easily have been written by another.

What if whoever else would've written such books would've been too lazy?

I am a man aided by reason and a sound philosophy.

A philosophy sound enough to give you special authority on how much others' lives are worth? How about you back up your claims about "criminal minds" and the like before boasting about how "sound" your philosophy is?

Most, if not all, countries in the world are unjust, including those to which you allude.

That doesn't make the wars on such countries just, though. Especially when they're justified based on false premises.

If such people were to exist, they would be guided by their spirit

And what exactly do you mean by "spirit"?

to pursue abstract knowledge rather than succumb to their desire to copulate.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. We all have sexual thoughts, including those of us who are good at abstract thought, like Randall Munroe, creator of XKCD.

This whole post seems to be a collection of self-riteous cliches. Are you trolling, PlatoByProxy? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

[Czardas]

Since moral value is even more subjective than monetary value, it's a practically useless term in any kind of argument, since your opponent can just say "I disagree with your concept of moral value since mine is different", leaving you at an impasse.

Your opponent could disagree with anything you say -- he might even insist that the sky is red, thereby leaving you at an impasse. Being right takes precedence over converting an obstinate debater.

You're not "right", however, since the concept of "rightness" is meaningless.