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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What, if anything, is necessary ?
Another debate sparked by Jace when he stated "I consider no human byproduct inherently necessary, because I do not consider our species necessary itself".
If our species is not necessary, what, if anyting, is?
The idea of necessity can’t be taken out of context. If a thing is necessary, it is required by someone or something and for a purpose.
Living things are the only entities that can hold anything as necessary. Are human beings necessary? Well, depends on the root value. We are not necessary for photosynthesis. We are necessary for the domestic chickens. I think the most important reason we are necessary is for our own sake. We are capable of having necessities like any other living thing. It’s a bit of a tautology but we are necessary because we are required in order for us to be. And being is the number one value and necessity for all living things, followed closely by replication…which is necessary.
Effectively, your argument is that we are necessary because we are necessary to ourselves. This is not only a circular form of reasoning, but it presumes our own value as its premise. This is unsurprising, since necessity is a projection inherently founded upon such assumptive values. When pressed though, I doubt that you can find any objective reason as to why we are necessary outside of our own perceived self-worth (which is, as mentioned, a subjective belief).
It seems circular, because this is the nature of inherence. If I were the only living thing, I would be the only thing capable of valuing. Since I value myself I am the only thing that is valuable in, of, and by myself (inherent). The ability and requirement to value is a property of humanity, which objectively exists. Taking people out of the picture doesn't make reality any more objective than taking physics out of the picture. We are a thing that exists and we have certain properties. Among those properties is valuation. Our own perceived self-worth is inherent in humanity (people who have zero self worth stop existing). It's not subjective because it is a given property.
It seems circular, because this is the nature of inherence.
Something can be inherent without being demonstrated as such through circular reasoning. It is inherent to human beings that we breath oxygen and expel carbon dioxide not because we breath oxygen (circular reasoning), but rather because our lungs are genetically evolved to process air in this fashion (biologically evident explanation).
If I were the only living thing, I would be the only thing capable of valuing. Since I value myself I am the only thing that is valuable in, of, and by myself (inherent). The ability and requirement to value is a property of humanity, which objectively exists. Taking people out of the picture doesn't make reality any more objective than taking physics out of the picture. We are a thing that exists and we have certain properties. Among those properties is valuation. Our own perceived self-worth is inherent in humanity (people who have zero self worth stop existing). It's not subjective because it is a given property.
It may be inherent that you (and other humans) value oneself subjectively, but that by no means proves that you/we are objectively valuable. The ability to conceive of and project value exists as an objective attribute, but that does not mean that value itself actually exists. If something exists only in our minds then it is subjective; if it exists independent of our minds then it exists objectively. Morality only exists in our minds, ergo it is subjective and not objective.
I never once suggested that we could take people "out of the picture"; I was merely identifying a common distinguishing factor between objectivity and subjectivity as presented in the dictionary (i.e. "not influenced by feelings" & "existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world" & " independent of individual thought", etc.).
Re-reading these old debates and wondering. The mind exists as a human property, the experience of mind is subjective. There are things that only exist within the mind and are subjective, but if a thing is a property of the human mind, do you still call it subjective?
Apologies if you answered this before. I don't think I ever asked your position on this directly and it may have caused a longer debate than necessary
I am not entirely sure what you mean by "property of the human mind" here; if my reply is non-responsive, please let me know.
The human brain is an objective, physical property of the human being. The mind generally refers to the state of conscious awareness most human beings possess, which is generated by the brain. I would say that the processes of the brain are objective, but that the perceptions created by those processes in the mind are subjective.
By this question I mean that living things try to keep living. I living things life is necessary to it. Life is an inherent value to the living. Does this make a living thing necessary to itself?
This is getting too Matrixy for me. I'm sure that the spoon exists, even if you say their is none.
What I'm getting at is this: I see no point in going deeper into the layers of asking if something is necessary to itself, and anything relating to that, since technically in this spectrum of reality, it is inherently. Their is no life without life being necessary to being life, if that makes sense, but sense (in this reality) there is life, life is necessary to itself.
To answer your initial question, if an answer is what you wanted, I'd say it goes without question.
That is exactly that logic I wanted to say. That's a long explanation for why that section of this debate is stupid. Yes, it goes without question. That's why I asked it, as an argument to potential answers to my question. I implied an obvious answer that no one could fathom, except for you, because they were too stupid.
You have proven that you understand basic logic and the idiot above who said "a suicidal person isn't necessary to themselves", even though inherently for that person to overcome suicidal depression and stay alive they obviously have to exist, is a perfect example of a shithead.
Haha wow. I made this because Jace made a comment about humans not being necessary. This struck me as odd coming from a human for the reason you stated. A non-living thing isn't necessary, it just is. A living things life is necessary except to the suicidal person, who doesn't get help, he dies.
Normally I would agree that there is no point in going into the necessity of things, but when people hold the position that people aren't necessary, apparently the topic needs to be visited.
Why, objectively, is a non-living thing unnecessary and a living thing necessary? That seems rather arbitrary, and I suspect it is a subjective conclusion drawn from your personal prejudice as a self-aware creature rather than one based upon objective reality. I would contend that the living as well as the non-living are equitably unnecessary; we as humans are not necessary, we just are. Why does this alarm you so much that you feel it needs addressed? I do not find it in any way problematic.
You need to have life in order to value something. You don't have to know that you value it so long as you take action to acquire it.
Second. If valuation is a property of a particular thing that exists, then valuation objectively exists. If that thing inherently values itself, then this is not subjective, but an objective property of the thing in question. Life values life.
Non-living things aren't unnecessary, they just are (and they are necessary to the living. This is not arbitrary, living things are the only thing capable of having necessities. "Being" is not a given for life. Since being is necessary in order to be (self-evident), life is the primary necessity for life. Though it is true that life doesn't have to be, as long as it is, it has necessities. Life itself being necessity number one.
You have proven that you understand basic logic and the idiot above who said "a suicidal person isn't necessary to themselves", even though inherently for that person to overcome suicidal depression and stay alive they obviously have to exist, is a perfect example of a shithead.
When people do not grasp what you mean despite it being blatantly obvious to you, it doesn't mean they're shitheads or idiots. It means you suck at communicating.
It's blatantly obvious to me because I'm too rational. But I'm a jackass at communicating, so it means that both me and the other person are shitheads and idiots.
Life is not of any value to primitive lifeforms because primitive life forms have no concept of value. Living things don't "try" to keep living. Things that perpetuate their own kind dominate by virtue of that mechanism, but this is the product of mindless chemistry.
To truly value life you at least need self awareness.
Value: That for which one takes action to gain and/or to keep.
The above definition isn't in the dictionary, but it clarifies all the fuzzy definitions. It's more precise.
By this definition, all living things value. They take action to maintain life. This doesn't have to be a conscious action. Life is necessary to the living. The fact that action is chemical in nature makes no difference. All action is the result of chemistry.
OH! I was about to ask what you meant...I have done that with some words before, though not with Value. That is an Objectivist definition. I compared it to the other definitions some time ago. Wish I could take credit. But I'll think about religion and get back to you.
Replace my definition of Faith (belief without proof) with your own definition and see if the rest holds.
For about a decade in anyone's life, mom/dad/any adult said so is usually evidence enough. Often if we confront later evidence which contradicts, we will do mental acrobatics to try to maintain our foundational view
It seems to, Yes. Going by what "the experts say" seems to last a bit longer for most people, than a decade. About the mental acrobatics you suppose we engage in in order to maintain our foundational beliefs....So we start with a "theology" and progress to "ruling logic", we start out naive and taking things literally, then HOPEFULLY eventually we get the gist of it. These are old mythical stories meant to inspire. Get people to ask the biggest questions and think about what's supposed to be most important. Religion, or what religion has evolved into might well be necessary to inspire future generations to have reverence for the intergenerational undertakings that have been traditionally referred to as religions...my thoughts
Lets say one does not value life because they commence on actions to end life it would be devaluating life, but there actions would most likely fail because the psychological or biological responses take over because naturally your body does not want to die. By your interpretation that would mean that someone values there life. Or what about people who continuously put themselves in life danger. Those are actions that are taken to possibly end ones own life not keep.
P.S I have ADHD so pardon if I skip around a lot. My writing require a bit of scrutiny. I am currently working on my syntax expressions.
It's true that people value their lives to greater or lesser degrees. There are also degrees of self-destruction. But the fact that there are biological or psychological factors that stop a person from ending their life does in fact mean that to some extent they value their life.
Or what about people who continuously put themselves in life danger.
Since danger and death are a given in life, coming close to them can remind you about some facts of life. Like the fact that you are still here, and that makes you happy. Skydiving for example may appear and feel very dangerous, though it really isn't when compared to some other common activities. Dare devil types usually aren't suicidal. They usually love life. If there is a problem with these types, it's probably a chemical addiction to adrenaline.
What? the reason they are dare devils is because they KNOW it is dangerous. They get exited at the idea "this could be the day I die" but they capitalize on their situation and hope for the best. It is not like driving(assume a normal driver). People drive with no idea of crashing and dying. They feel safe. An adrenaline junkie seeks too feel as if it is highly a high possibility of dying. The less dangerous it is the less 'fun' it is. For example, someone who loves sky running will want to jump over/across a building only if it is a big gap in between.
Why the big gap? Because it enhances their possibilities of dying. Which does what again? Excites them.
The enhanced possibility of dieing is necessary for the "junkie" to feel like that they almost went out of existence, but they are still here. The high that they so crave comes after the feat is accomplished. You need to live through it to enjoy it, and that enjoyment is an affirmation of life.
I would like to note that an adrenaline addict is not healthy. Just as drinking is fine but alcoholism is destructive, extreme sports are fine, but adrenaline junkies are destructive.
Just like an alcoholic, once they recognize a problem, they will try to correct their behavior. This is because of their value of life.
But the fact that there are biological or psychological factors that stop a person from ending their life does in fact mean that to some extent they value their life.
Does the fact that I jerk my knee as if wishing violence on the air when a doctor hits it with a mallet to some extent mean I hate air? Surely not. Yet a literal knee jerk reaction is a biological factor causing us to do something. And you can concoct a reason why at some level our bodies really do want to kick something. But we don't. We don't take much responsibility for this reflexive action. What we do reflexively does not suggest any deep values we have. Quite the opposite, primitive biological factors are a defense for allegations of culpability.
For some people, their biology may not work the way it does for everyone else. They might not have knee jerk reflexes. They might not have other preservation mechanisms working. We might call these people ill. But we wouldn't call these people as somehow having fundamentally different values.
Therefore, Value is a thing of the mind. Anything not of the mind, anything we call mindless is irrelevant to value.
That's pretty weak, you might as well have said "as if wishing to take a picture". You disconnected the knee reflex from its real purpose (which was discovered, not concocted), which is to aid in balance with little conscious effort. This is necessary for a biped to survive.
It's true that some people may lack some preservation mechanism (or perhaps their legs). And its true that we don't hold them as having different values. That's because they still take action to maintain their life. Similarly there are plants that lack certain defenses that others have, This doesn't mean the plant has different fundamental values. It's still acts to gain and keep the things it needs to live. We express values cognitively, but cognition isn't required.
Take my definition and compare it to any other definition of value that fits this context. My definition is the essence of the others. While the other definitions may not be interchangeable with each other, this definition is at the heart of each (in context ie not math or music values). We prioritize our actions toward things we value more than others, this means that even definitions of monetary value requires my definition at its root. The mechanism of evolution wouldn't work if living things didn't value according to my definition.
Have I misunderstood which things value, or have you misunderstood the term itself.
The most basic thing that can replicate is a crystal growing from a seed. You could say it grows in size to gain more aligned atoms in it's lattice. It's not even life, but it loosely fits your definition of something that could value. Yet this is so far off from what comes to mind when we think of value that it suggests that you're describing something else entirely.
The definition you give is useful when one cannot know what someone actually thinks. It provides a way to judge if a person values something without getting in their head. But it doesn't mean it applies to things without heads, without minds. Your definition is more precise, but it's off target.
Value is a thing of the mind. You need a mind to value something, and like wise to be able to make choices based on values. Value is a hallmark of free will. Crystals and primitive life don't have values.
The difference between crystals and simple life is that crystals won't cease to exist if they stop growing. life must do what it does or it will stop living. This is the difference that makes living action based on values
Living things don't view themselves as things. Life is an arbitrary line in the complexity of things that grow. Things are another arbitrary line people draw to organize the world. Living things are only a thing to beings with certain level of mental capability. Specifically, you need self awareness to have a concept of being a distinct living being. Being autonomously replicating and growing is not enough. Only if you are self aware can you then have a value of that thing you call your "self".
One of the definitions of value in the dictionary is "usefulness or importance". Crystals (which are simple arrangements necessitated by physics), can stop "growing, but they are still crystals. If a living thing stops acquiring the necessities of life, it will stop living. This is what I mean by value. Vines reach toward structures, they don't have to think in order to do this, but they still have to act. Nature is filled with things that take action to gain something that is required for its life. Much of it is mindless.
Things are another arbitrary line people draw to organize the world.
The complexity of life is so far above the non-living, that we are still really working on figuring out how the leap was made. This vast distinction removes any sense of it being arbitrary.
If you really think that we organize the world based on random choice or whim, then you must not really be cognizant. That's like saying that it's a mere arbitrary choice to distinguish between stars and comets, or fire and ice, or anything at all.
All necessity is conditional. When we say something is necessary another thing we are projecting a presumption of secondary necessity to whatever the primary necessity is required for (A is necessary for B to exist, which ultimately presumes that B is necessary itself... and so on). To ascribe necessity is to construct a notion of value around the secondary object for which the primary is necessary. Ultimately, however, there is no legitimate basis from which to claim that value exists objectively.
That we view things as necessary to our survival is a consequence of our presumed sense of personal and collective worth. The problem with this belief is that it has no objective foundation, but is instead premised upon a subjective value claim.
You can say that death is necessary for murder without claiming that murder is necessary. Beyond that, living things are the only things that can value of hold something to have worth. Holding values is a property of the living. Living things exist objectively. Therefore, so do values, though only to the living.
You can say that death is necessary for murder without claiming that murder is necessary.
You can say that death is necessary to meet the definition of murder but you cannot do so without claiming that the term murder must have an absolute, singular, and codified meaning. The secondary claim implied by the initial one is that language needs to be codified. Etc.
Beyond that, living things are the only things that can value of hold something to have worth. Holding values is a property of the living. Living things exist objectively. Therefore, so do values, though only to the living.
I addressed your nearly identical rebuttal to myself to this effect elsewhere already; I refer you there since I am disinterested in unnecessarily redundant discussions.
You can say that death is necessary to meet the definition of murder
To be clear, are you ascribing value to meeting the definition of murder?
I addressed...already
Yeah, then I referred you to my ongoing debate concerning the definition used. The primary argument seems to be that the definition I presented, though it fits with many other provided definitions, doesn't quite fit with a definition that you like (or the other guy). Other than the definition itself, You'll find a distinction between subjectivity and properties elsewhere as well.
To be clear, are you ascribing value to meeting the definition of murder?
No. I am identifying what your initial statement actually ascribed value to. You claimed that death is necessary for murder; I point out that this is not what your statement actually observed and that it had an implicit value statement attached to the definition of murder itself.
Yeah, then I referred you to my ongoing debate concerning the definition used. The primary argument seems to be that the definition I presented, though it fits with many other provided definitions, doesn't quite fit with a definition that you like (or the other guy). Other than the definition itself, You'll find a distinction between subjectivity and properties elsewhere as well.
Within the context of this debate you did no such thing. You have not even replied to my other post to you in this debate in which I made the argument I would have made here. If you expect me to look through every single post you have made in this and other debates to other people looking for a definitional debate you have vaguely alluded to, then you are sorely mistaken in your evaluation of how much nonsense I am willing to take from you.
Regarding my use of the term "objective" (to which I assume you refer, since you do not actually say), I actually do use the dictionary definition of term which defines it as being extent to our imagination. Your argument continues to assert that our perceptions equate actuality; that is a misunderstanding of the term.
This one is mostly being settles elsewhere now so I will only respond concerning the word necessary. I really don't think the word always comes with a value ascription. If one things existence is conditional on another, we can say one is necessary for the other. This isn't a value statement, just a statement of fact. You don't have to conclude that anyone values either thing simply because there is a conditional relationship.
To say something is necessary requires a value system to assert what that thing is necessary for. The only value anything has is the value given by people. Another way to say this is nothing is inherently valuable. Therefore nothing is inherently necessary.
However, this is not the most clear turn of phrase.
Humans are not the only things that value. All living things take action to maintain their life (it doesn't matter that the action is mindless). Life is inherently valuable to the living. Since living things are the only thing capable of valuing, and what life fundamentally values is itself, Life is the only thing that is inherently valuable.
Non-living things are not necessary, they just are. Life is necessary, though only to itself.
The statement above about necessities of physics is not a statement of value, but a statement of a effects and causes which simply are.
To say something is necessary requires a value system to assert what that thing is necessary for.
Not necessarily. I could say gravity is necessary to the stability of planets. This necessity is in no way dependent on personal evaluations. I could say that adaptation is necessary for evolution. This is necessarily the case irrespective of personal values as well.
You could say that gravity is necessary to the stability of planets, but at the same time that it's unnecessary to the stability of atoms. So which is it, necessary or unnecessary? You generally need to say necessary to what. But here we don't. When you don't do this you imply that there is some ultimate implied metric that is in some sense superior to all others. For example, I could say the only thing that's necessary is we remember that we are all people. That's saying something. Something that assumes a universal value. Something that is in contradiction to the claim that nothing is necessary.
Now I do agree that the the implied value of a broad statement like that is not necessarily "personal". But it is, by nature of how it's used, somehow ultimate.
I could say gravity is necessary to the stability of planets.
You could, but that in turn presumes the necessity of the stability of planets. This is an ascription of personal valuation. The same is true of saying that adaptation is necessary for evolution; you are presuming the necessity of evolution which is also an ascription of value.