CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Whether it is subjective or not, if we do not value human life then we are capable of crimes against humanity. Such an opinion must be rejected as being inherently sociopathic.
If that's the case then reality is sociopathic. A thing cannot have value, only a person or other entity can value a thing. Do you see how this works? It doesn't mean you have to not value human life, or that it's not "right" or reasonable to do so, it just means you have to admit that value is not a thing that has any objective basis.
Some things do not need natural science to decide objectivity. Ethics, for example, does not come from natural science but from human science and it can be established as an objective reality in various aspects of life. All our answers do not come from natural science. Nor do all our questions.
If it doesn't exist in nature then it can't be objective. Is it objectively logical to act ethically and to value human life? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that nothing actually has value as an inbred property, it is people that value things, not the things themselves which actually have some property called "value"
People choose to imbue value into all manner of institutions such as human rights, international law, professional ethics and so forth. Natural science cannot help us here.
If God isn't real then we have no worth, dignity, or value. We are simply just stardust, and bags of protoplasm. If we are stardust and protoplasm it doesn't really reflect anything with value.
I am not saying that you shouldn't value anything, just that value has no objective basis. just because "worth" and "dignity" and "value" are all conceptual doesn't mean you should eat feces and go around murdering everyone, it takes a certain level of intellect and maturity to be able to handle the truth and if you can't accept that value is subjective without feeling "worthless" then you are completely trapped within a subjective mindset.
There is no basis for value other than how something relates to some entity which is capable of valuing things which makes it subjective. Nothing actually has value, it can only be valued.
If there is no basis or foundation then it's weak and falls apart very quickly. Thank you for agreeing on me about how value is basically meaningless. If that's the case when people suffer a tragedy don't pretend to be sorry for their loss of a loved one, or act like you care because after all like you said nothing has value. That's the problem with the worldview that you hold. It's weak, and has no foundation.
If there is no basis or foundation for you to care about other people other than social constructs and religious doctrine then you are admitting you have no naturally occurring empathy and draw all of your moral and ethical guidelines from the list of rules that has been programmed into your head. Who has a weak foundation again? You can't even care about other people unless it's some universal law that you have to and I'm the one pretending? Value does not objectively exist except as a conceptual notion, if you can't accept that without going insane and losing the ability to care about anything then you have a weak foundation psychologically.
There is no basis for value other than how something relates to some entity which is capable of valuing things
That's like saying there is no basis for intelligence other than how it relates to some entity which is capable of judging intelligence. It doesn't prove intelligence (or value) is subjective.
I am not confident that you even understand the difference between subjective and objective. For example, if the entire human race needs something to survive, such as the Sun, or oxygen, then those things can be said to have objective value. Life itself has objective value, since dead things are not capable of experiencing the universe.
Nothing actually has value, it can only be valued.
Lol. This is a textbook oxymoron you blathering, pretentious dunce. If something is valued it therefore has value to the thing valuing it. The discussion is about whether that value exists objectively or not.
Intelligence is actually a property which something can have, but value is something which something can only be perceived to have. If the entire human race needs something to survive, such as the Sun, or oxygen, then those things can not be said to have objective value, because they only have value to those who need it. Your worldview is entirely based in the subjective, the belief in God allows you to conflate the conceptual with universal law, to you God's moral opinions are scientific facts. There is a difference between an idea existing and that idea being true, for example I can imagine that I have some inherent quality called hobberjaganungerstein and other people may respect my hobberjaganungerstein and it may be mutually beneficial for everyone to hobberjaganungerstein but that doesn't mean it exists except in a conceptual sense.
If there is no objective basis of value then value is simple relative and there is no meaning behind value at all.
Value is NEVER objective.
Consider,
I own a rock. It is totally worthless. It is just a plain, grey, oval with a white stripe around/through it. There are millions of similar rocks in every town or city in America. It has no objective basis of value.
I found it in the road in Parkland when I was in college, and I carried it around with me for years. Now it is in a keepsake box in my wardrobe on the top shelf. My wife wants me to get rid of it because it is just a worthless rock.
I keep it because, regardless of its lack of objective value, it has great sentimental value to me. I don't even really know why.
The fact that I treasure that rock (despite the fact that it has no objective basis of value) does not change the fact that there is meaning behind value.
This is because value is subjective. Were value not subjective, identical products and services would all cost the same, regardless of where we buy them.
People on this site often seem to think that subjective means non-existent.
I have noticed that to be the case all too often.
It appears to be the result of an unwillingness (inability?) of many people to distinguish between fact and opinion, and more problematically, between analysis and opinion.
This seems to correspond (in many cases) with a failure to distinguish between thinking and feeling, and between thinking and wanting/hoping.
Here in the US, this is at the core of the political differences between the far left and most folks right of center (with the exception of the religious right). It makes discussion of political differences difficult.
It actually does because if it isn't then what is human worth? It's subjective then. Human worth can be defined as you interpret it. If you like getting drunk, or having sex all the time because that makes you valuable. Then go right ahead nobody is stopping you.
Human life might have inherent value to itself, but I don't think this counts. The inherent value I think you are speaking of would require something being valuable without the need for someone to value it, which wouldn't be possible.
Value and meaning are dependent on how something affects an individual or group. You can't say "how profound" or "I care deeply about this" without the proper circuitry because it is entirely subjective. Something cannot have value, even if it is a person, because value is something that only exists relative to a persons subjective needs and preferences. When you look at the sunset and think "how amazing" the sunset doesn't have any physical property that can be measured and verified, scientists don't look at the sun through a spectral telescope and say "yep, we've got a lot of amazingness emissions discharging today" because when you call something amazing or profound that is YOUR reaction to it. If an american found a 100 dollar bill on the ground, they would be very happy about that because it has value to their culture. If a person from north korea found it they might flush it down the toilet or report it to the authorities. So when you say something has value, you are projecting the fact that it has value to you or to society as if it is a physical reality, as if it is some inherent property of the thing itself. I say nothing has value, nothing has meaning, nothing is beautiful or ugly or anything else, other than it's exact composition and properties. We should understand this, but not use it to justify any anti human agenda, but instead use that understanding to help us decide whether certain people truly have value even on a subjective basis, such as banking elites and pedophiles, and use it as a justification to put them to death. Because human life doesn't have inherent value, in fact, many humans are the least valuable thing there is.
Who are you to say your life has value? It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks, it is not a thing that has value but a person who values a thing. Value doesn't exist except as a subjective notion, nothing actually has value, it can only be valued by someone, get it?
They don't have value, they are being valued, see the difference? There is nothing objective about the value itself, only the fact that it is being valued, and most organisms can't attribute value to something because they are microorganisms with no brains.
My life has value to ME! That's all that matters. It can have value to no one else, but it does to me. Are you claiming that someone else has to value my life for it to even matter? If so, you are a fool. I could claim that your life has no value. Does that mean I can take it from you? Perhaps that is what you wish to happen. To have the power of life and death over others, based on some merit system.
You don't understand the issue at all. whether you or anyone else values your life doesn't matter because value does not exist as a quality that something can have. In order for something to have value, it must be valued, so it isn't the thing that HAS value but rather it is BEING VALUED BECAUSE VALUE IS NOT REAL AND IT IS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECTIVE
NO. because all we have done to the earth is make it worse. let's count the many MANY ways. First, we are polluting the earth with green house gasses at a rate not seen on earth for millions of years. Second, We have made extinct THOUSANDS of species. Personally, I would sacrifice the human race for the other species. Including myself. Third, we have warred on ourselves. We think that these technological advances are great, but lets remember: The atomic bomb, thousands of poisons, thievery, suicide, slaves, rape. All we have done is make the world worse. The way I see it, the smarter and older the human race gets, the worse we are. I hope you agree with me.
I think of it as analogous to energy. Human life has potential value and kinetic (actual, demonstrated) value.
This means that a human is only of value in the kinetic mode.
Those who contribute to the lives and wellbeing of others live lives with value. The value is not inherent, but created by effort and action.
Those who make the lives of others worse have a negative kinetic value. (e.g., Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer) These are people who chose to act in ways that destroyed value others had.
Those people who contribute nothing to others have potential value (someday their lives MIGHT have value, IF they do something that contributes to others) but their lives CURRENTLY have no value (e.g., a fetus or a millennial who lives with his parents rent-free, does no chores, and stays in his room all day playing video games.)
A lottery ticket is a useful analog, also.
Lives with potential value, but no kinetic value are essentially lottery tickets before the drawing. They are worthless now, but someday might be incredibly valuable. This is why abortion is so foolish; it is the equivalent of tearing up a lottery ticket before finding out whether or not it is a winner.