Should we value the life of someone who doesn't value his or anyone else's life?
First off, it's too difficult to compare "value" in life, and to determine whether or not one values one's life or values another's life.
Secondly, since I feel that value systems (esp. in context of life value) are highly relative, I think that there is a comfortable standard that everyone can live with when we're talking about treatment of each other. For instance, if I were to treat everyone as though they are criminals and descendants of satan himself, I'm sure most would not feel comfortable with the way that I treat them. The same would be true if I were to tell everyone that I love them and I wished they would all bare my children and I treat them all too well. There is a standard that most are comfortable with, and that standard is the "equal" treatment of all people.
It wouldn't matter to me if other seemed as though they valued their lives more than they value mine or visa-versa, or if they seemed to not value anyone's life. I would treat them all equal until I knew the person well enough to pass a more thorough judgment of them which would only really serve a function for me anyhow (If I am evaluating how I see your evaluations, I am only comparing myself to you, for my own use).
Most could not rightfully say "My life is worth a lot of gold", or "My life is worth the strength of a diamond" and expect for the next to agree with their evaluation of how they value life.
How do you know that the people killing themselves don't see their life as the most valuable? What I mean is, they are sacrificing themselves to do something, like "blow themselves up" to take a few "innocent" people with them, they might see that as "My life is the only one that can take these lives", and if they are killing these people, they are doing something that they want to do, so killing those "innocent people" in their minds needs to be done. His life is worth the cause that he's dying for. That's worth a lot to them, worth their lives and the lives of others, you know what I mean?
Also, "innocent" is also very, very, relative. For instance, I would consider myself innocent, but a Jehovah's Witness would call me a sinner, which is not so innocent. If you're valuing another's decisions as right or wrong, you are in the same action, evaluating their worth. You do see value in the people, but it's the wrong value.
This doesn't mean that they are worthless or have no value to someone else, but it's a different value. Like I said, everyone has a different value system.
Does that though mean that the person taking the lives should be treated differently? Well, let's think that through logically. If they are killing "innocent" people, and you saw that as a bad thing, that would mean that you, for calling their decision wrong, are comparing their values to yours and then calling it "bad". You are comparing a person that you aught to treat different, to you, who you consider to be normal. Do you see the flaw in this? How can you treat this person different than you, even though it is a human, unless you compare it's value system to yours?
You have to treat them the same as you expect to be treated if you're going to punish them under your power for doing something that you consider to be wrong... if you don't that means that they shouldn't be held to your set of expectations because they are different from you.
No, we should not value the life of someone who does not value his life nor the life of others. We should not treat everyone the same way at all cost. We need to be flexible. If treating someone a certain way doesn't work or if it threatens us, then don't do it.
This is like asking, "Should we allow ourselves to be handicapped in an attempt to reach Utopia or should we just deal with the real world?" But this second question doesn't fit in the alloted space above ;)
The following is a story of two groups:
The first group has this concept of "fairness" that they like to extend to other people who don't share their beliefs nor their concept of fairness. Extending their concept of "fairness" to these other people handicaps the first group.
The first group likes to extend their concept of "fairness" to other people who don't reciprocate because it "makes them feel good." If everyone bought into their concept of "fairness" then there wouldn't be so much conflict. We would all just get along. We would reach Utopia.
There's another group that is also trying to reach Utopia except they use force in order to extend their concepts and views onto the first group. The second group would like to eliminate the first group in all out war.
Therefore, by allowing itself to be handicapped in order to reach an imaginary place can be dangerously disastrous for the first group. I would thus counsel the first group to wake up, smell the coffee and start dealing with the second group which isn't so nice.
My counsel to the first group would be:
Don't extend your concept of "fairness" to anyone who doesn't agree with this concept. Don't allow yourself to be handicapped. Go into self preservation mode. Defend your group with whatever means are available. Don't allow yourself to be handicapped. Your view cannot win if your group is destroyed by the second group. The second group doesn't allow itself to be handicapped, why allow yours to be handicapped? Defend your group with extreme prejudice, at all cost or resign yourself to living in someone else's Utopia that is not of your choosing. Those are your options.
Once the second group is neutralized, you can go back to your ideals.
It's patently obvious you are using the "first group", the "fair" group as an example of liberalism. For once, oddly enough, I agree with you.
Liberals are much too passive, much too peaceful, much too lenient with those who would do them and others harm.
Violence as a means of defense, in war or the execution of justice, is perfectly acceptable to me. I may be a leftist but I am no passivist. Murderers, war-mongers, nations, cultures, groups, and individuals who rely on oppression and violence to secure their place need to be countered with force.
People who value their lives so little that they are willing to destroy themselves, their nation, and the civilizations of the world should be forced to give up their ways or be met with consequences (wouldn't you agree, Mr. Joe?).
Of course, that means that we must all start making sacrifices to stave off global climate change, anyone that resists should have the full force of the law against them. After all, isn't it suicidal to value personal mechanical transport over survival? Isn't it especially suicidal if said person lives below sea-level?
I think Joe's little thought experiment has done us all a world of good! He's shown that anyone who refuses to live a more eco-friendly life does not value their own (or anyone else's) and they are not worth preserving (especially if they refuse to change)!