Inherent worth of life

Brenna wrote:

Sidewalker wrote: Hypothetical: A train is about to run into five people, killing them. After weighing the options, you discover the only way to divert the course of that train would be to hurl a person standing next to you onto some kind of switch to do so, killing them in the process. You could sacrifice yourself, but three of the five depend on you for survival. What do you do?

why do only 3 of the five who are going to be killed depend on you for survival?

They suffer from a rare and deadly condition that only you know the cure for, but your notes on the matter are stored in a computer that can only be accessed by your specific retinal scan. It's possible even more lives could be saved in the future.

I have though that in the true definition of "inherent", there is no value that exists in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute. So this means that "value" must be considered an emotional or psychological trait that we place upon a subject, much that same as how we name things.

Killing is not hard or in itself wrong, but in order to protect ourselves, we have created a scheme of laws that are self serving in that they make killing wrong. This is because our ego tells us that we don't want to die, or I am attached to my loved ones, or many other psychological and emotional manifestations.

It is in our love and compassion for others that we place a "value" / "worth" on human existence. It is as on great man stated, "An Inalienable Right" for all people to have life, liberty, and happiness. This again is a standard of morals and ethics based on human emotions and psychological responses to our ego wishing to be protected. (See Maslow's hierarchy of needs)

For life to continue it must be stable and for life to be stable no one can kill.

steamboat28 wrote:

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?

All I was saying when he said that not everybody's opinion matters was that it was his opinion of everybody else's opinions. Who's to say that his opinion matters, either? It's a matter of perspective as is the matter of worthiness placed upon things by our own minds. Of course it's a given, but it struck me odd to state an opinion about other's opinions in such a way. I think it would've been more correct to say that "not everybody's opinion matters to me," rather than leaving the "to me" part out. Of course, I can see where this will go in that one might say that there was no need to point that out. I at least try to choose my words more carefully so as to not make any assertions that aren't true for all. That is, I try not to speak for anybody but myself. Everybody's opinion matters to somebody. May not be you or me, but, to somebody, it does. Again, value is placed by the observer's mind and isn't universal.

Drexid wrote: For life to continue it must be stable and for life to be stable no one can kill.

Life will continue whether stable or not and not every stable life is without killing.

Several mass extinctions later...life on earth still exists.

If life is still around it is stable. If humans are killing each other they arnt stable. What's the argument?

Who's to say that humans killing each other isn't stable? If it's an apex predator's nature to kill its own kind for domination isn't that stable? We see it demonstrated in other species. One might argue that humanity's reckless treatment of the environment is unstable, but does not an asteroid or comet occasionally obliterate most life on earth only to leave a crater as the planet adapts into a new paradigm of life? Stability is a very human observation of pattern. The human's life, even humanity's is so short in comparison to that of the earth, it cannot fathom actual stability.

If something is true about the Force, it is that it does a lot of "killing". From the galaxies that absorb other galaxies to the bacteria killing other bacteria... It's all really a form of recycling. When someone dies, a part of the force doesn't cease to exist: it merely changes colour and shape. It's an end, not "the end".

It seems if life has worth it could be called arbitrary.