[Prunesquallor]

The danger attached to the process is when we decide our answers are more correct than anyone else's and everyone must follow our vision.

Thats one danger. The other is standing by and doing nothing while bad things happen.

It isn't obvious to me that relativism will lead to tolerance, or a reluctance to engage in extreme behavior, because I think the feeling that "we are better than them/we know the truth" is pretty deeply rooted in human nature.

RE an earlier point - "Don't kill" is a rule, not a value. I think that merging the two is a result of implicitly accepting a Christian/absolutist moral framework that exists in western culture. We can (contrary to the traditional Christain way of thinking) believe that something (such as life) can be of (real, objective) value without thinking that automatically gives rise to a rule prohibiting killing.

I think it is a lot easier to talk about what is of value than to work out a rule for all circumstances. Life or happiness, or whatever is of value, but what that means in particular circumstances is another question.

[Gary Wassner]

I'll repeat though, that I do think being human and alive generates an entire set of unique circumstances that you can infer value from. If life has intrinsic value within the context of 'life vs non-life', then to kill or to take that away from someone would generate a judgment of some kind. Of course, once again we need to begin somewhere, and because we are restiricted by language in order to think, we need to accept some premises as true. Life does not infer value logically, all by itself. But something keeps whispering to me that being alive as opposed to not being alive, can be the basis for an inference of value.

[Prunesquallor]

I think I agree with that

[Hereford Eye]

Flying east to west across the United States yesterday provided an opportunity for thinking about what you've said, GW. If "being alive, as opposed to not being alive, can be the basis for an inference of value."
then what value is inferred?
I can understand that my being alive is of value to me because I have no experience of its absence and am therefore uniquely unqualified to judge the alternatives but is it of value to anyone else or is it merely tolerated? If my being alive is of value to other people, how many other people? Does it ever become of value to everyone? Does the fact that other people are alive have as much value as my being alive? Are some more valuable than others? If all the people alive are of approximately the same value, why? What makes our lives valuable?
Is it just human life that's valuable or is it all animal life? Why would animals be more important than the plants they ultimately depend on? If all life is valuable, then can there be any justification for killing something? Even to facilitate the food chain?
If "being alive" is one side of the spectrum and "being not alive" is on the other, than can we say that living is 'good' and not living 'bad'? Is this a basis for good and evil?

[Gary Wassner]

You are asking many of the same questions that occurred to me when I posted that thought.

Let's start by looking at life as positive and absence of life as negative. Then let's infer from there. WE could get very detailed eventually and look at all of the variations in between: life that takes another life, life that enhances the quality of all life, of some life, of some lives (we could define heroism in this context). Sacrifice becomes a positive value once again if it enhances.

Life needs to be defined though, as you say, because plant life is life etc. But is a fertilized egg life? Organic cannot equal life or we would not get anywhere, I suppose. But we would need to work at defining our terms and clarifying our premises. You have to start somewhere, right?

[Dawnstorm]

If I had to start somewhere, I'd start with "pleasure/pain". I know both. I have no experience of death, so how can I say that I'm not deluded and death is actually preferrable to life (dying appears to be a real bugger, but then so is being born...).

It also solves the "suicide/euthanasia" dilemma.

(See, I'm being relativist again. If I never experienced it, I can't say zilch about it's value... :rolleyes: )

***

I can understand that my being alive is of value to me because I have no experience of its absence and am therefore uniquely unqualified to judge the alternatives

This is uniquely confusing. Are you implying that familiar things are of more value than unfamiliar ones?

[Hereford Eye]

Aw, DS, you ought to let the old guys ramble on now and then. Let me edit the sentence thusly: "I can understand that my being alive is of value to me. But, because I have no experience of its absence, I am therefore uniquely unqualified to judge the alternatives and therefore uniquely unqualified to determine precise nature of the value."

[Prunesquallor]

Does the fact that other people are alive have as much value as my being alive? Are some more valuable than others? If all the people alive are of approximately the same value, why? What makes our lives valuable?
Is it just human life that's valuable or is it all animal life? Why would animals be more important than the plants they ultimately depend on?

I think these questions can only be answered by getting precise about the claim “life is valuable".

If all life is valuable, then can there be any justification for killing something?
To say that something is valuable does not mean that you can’t do anything bad to it. I value money but I still deplete my savings on occasion.

If "being alive" is one side of the spectrum and "being not alive" is on the other, than can we say that living is 'good' and not living 'bad'? Is this a basis for good and evil?
I think we should say it has no value, and that acts that cause death are bad, not because they are causing death, but because they are robbing the world of something of value.

I agree with DS, though, it seems to me that it is pleasure/pain/experience that is of value, not the life itself.

[Gary Wassner]

Pleasure/pain is a very relative things as well. There are some basics that we understand probably universally, but the subtleties are muddlesome.

Remember though that we are searching for premises that we have to accept as given. That's why I posited life/absence of life. All we know is life and we all know what it means to be alive. Pleasure/pain can then be gauged relative to that - how close it comes to destroying life or enhancing it.

[Prunesquallor]

I think a general correlation between pleasure/good, pain/bad is about as close to a "given" as we will get.

I don't see life in itself as having any value. I think that life is valuable only because it enables us to have valuable experiences, and that a life devoid of those has no value.