Inherent worth of life

From an objective stance, what's one planet Earth in the face of hundreds of trillions of other planets, some inhabited and others barren? It implies we are trivial and meaningless.

From my own subjectivity: The meaning in our lives is derived from our capacity to love and learn and grow. Even though we must live out our days on a "mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam," it doesn't mean we cannot find value in the subtleties of life.

I find meaning from the intrinsic beauty of life, the relationships I've built, the foods I taste. I find meaning in following my passion for physics and realizing my goal for innovation, which is greater than myself. How do you look at what life offers you?

While I agree that the argument of, "It just does," is a weak stance when reasoning why anything has worth, I think it's more important to think of "how" anything has worth. Worth is a mere concept of value placed upon something by any individual mind. What you think has worth may or may not have the same, or any, worth for me, but it doesn't mean that I don't think it could have worth. If you're familiar with Alan Watts, I find he always explains things in terms of concepts of the mind over reality. Worth is in the same category of words as length, weight, meters, grams, or even lines of longitude and latitude. "How much is it worth?", for me, is equal to saying, "How many inches does it have?" or "How much does it weigh?" or even "How much does it cost?" While I find worth in everything, no matter the size or original intent, what I find worthy of noting or conserving may not have the same weight on your mind as it does for mine.

An example of this might be the difference between a lumberjack, or saw mill worker, and an environmentalist. A lumberjack, or saw mill worker, would see a tree as a crop or as something to cut into timber for construction or fire wood, while an environmentalist might see the work of a lumberjack to be heinous because he's cutting down forestry and consuming the spoils, so to speak, destroying the environment, one tree at a time. Then, there's the third angle, which sides with both parties, the forestry conservation manager, who sees the need to reduce the amount of trees in a dense area of the forest (mostly dead, dying, diseased, or dangerous trees) to avoid catastrophic forest fires. All three, in my mind, are correct.

I think this may become a discussion topic on today's hangout, and as I see there is little to be added at this point, but let me emphasize this:

Have you been to the woods with a child and seen it pick up a stone or a stick? Those items are worthless before the kid found them and they will be worthless after you walk is over, but it may be of great value to the child in the meantime. Just because something has no inherent absolute worth doesn't mean its worthless across the board. And not everyone's opinion is equally valid either.

And, of course, that is your opinion, of which you are entitled.

What is the inherent value in life?

There is no inherent value in it.

Why is it wrong to kill?

Because it is simply impossible to get bloodstains out of this clothing!

Seriously, though, there is no value in itself, of itself. As Watts mentioned in The Book "we're just tubes eating other tubes" (something along those lines!).

Life is such a rare and amazing thing, though, that it seems impossible (for me) to treat it as if it were worthless. So while there may be no inherent value, that doesn't stop me assigning my own value to it.

None of that "rare and amazing" sentiment is going to stop me eating bacon, though!

mmmm... bacon

It is no different than the inherent value of a banknote: it's a specific piece of paper with some specific ink on it. Despite what the bank will tell you, it is not worth more, or less than that. Remember when the "inherent" value of copper coins was higher than the face value given by the bank?

I guess I read the "inherent worth" line differently from most: to me, it means that furry animals are not more "valuable" (or "worthy").

there's a tv programme about new zealand or australian animal protection authorities. they took a dog away from its owner because it was carrying fleas. They also sued the owner for it. the "animal welfare" people killed the fleas, and eventually the dog when they couldn't rehouse him.

-Was the dog not better off with fleas than dead?
-What if the dog or the dog owner considered the fleas to be pets?
-Are the fleas not animals too, and therefore worthy of equal protection?
-Fleas live by sucking blood off the dog without having to kill it. the dog's diet consists of killed animals.


My thoughts after seeing this programme are that those "animal welfare" authorities are incapable of understanding the inherent worth of animal life. The animal welfare dudes had not disrupted the balance of life, it was not for them to "correct" it.

I think a discussion could further come from your comments there Ren...

:lol:...

But, I do agree that value is assigned by the perceiver....

The majority may say that something is valuable, but, that doesn't make it so...

Or, doesn't make the value equal...

You're right. Value is assigned completely by the person judging that value. But if we start making that argument, then we'll invariably come to the conclusion that "Technically, nothing is worth anything ever." Which, at its core, is NOT incorrect.

I would say, however, that submitting to that notion is dangerous. I'd much prefer that we at least agree that, yes, life is all worth something; or at the very least, human life.

Luthien wrote: And, of course, that is your opinion, of which you are entitled.

...yes. basically. that's kind of a given, really.

now, what is your response to it? Other than the admission that, as an opinion, it is valid to be held?

Wickham wrote: You're right. Value is assigned completely by the person judging that value. But if we start making that argument, then we'll invariably come to the conclusion that "Technically, nothing is worth anything ever." Which, at its core, is NOT incorrect.

I would say, however, that submitting to that notion is dangerous. I'd much prefer that we at least agree that, yes, life is all worth something; or at the very least, human life.

Althought I know what you mean, there is actually little danger of that being a problem....

We are too smart, and attached to stuff...

What is the value of a rabbit to a fox?

Not "what is it for", or "what would happen if..."

What is the value of a rabbit to a fox?

You can't say, as you can't speak for the fox...

So, to say that "everything has no value" is as silly as saying "everything has value"...

Somethings have more value to me than you, and if i determine it worthless, you may not, therefore canceling my value estimation... lol...

Just discussin' not preachin'...