Inherent worth of life

My issue with this topic in the first place is that, like I said, whenever we wring up the question of "Inherent worth" the answer will ALWAYS be that there is none. There's no objective value to anything (at least in my opinion).

I think the question we should be asking is, "How much value should we elect to put in life, and how can we justify putting one life above another, if that's the case?"

Humans have technology so it's different than other species.

There's no right or wrong answer to this one. "Value" is a pretty human concept anyway.

There might be a few value's which speak to that concept; ones capacity to potentially interact physically to effect change, ones actual record of success in effecting change, ones actual record of effort to attempt change, etc there is probably more, but I'm only looking at it from a physical agent operating in a physical environment of integrated systems. All those measurements would have to be cast within a context of the environments and systems the person was within, and if or how much the persons individual circumstances alter that calculation. It's starting to sound like a math formula and so its lost me
:lol:
So many variables.... and since we do not know everything the result could be completely useless anyway :side:

I personally think all life is the same 'Force' being represented in unique ways, and as such it should all be respected, cherished and given a fair go.... but since we all live in a shared environment, if something does not share those attitudes then it is seemingly operating outside of a constructive paradigm for a shared use environment. If it operates against the system it seems to be choosing to leave the system, or change the system. I do not subscribe to survival of aggression, instead about compassion and happiness ie love. Those things do not have to equal weakness as they are so often associated with, and if something is fighting that system it seems logically to expect the system to react to its attempts to influence the system. So I think the system, at its roots is the Force, which to me is closest to concepts such as love, bliss, and light etc.

Sidewalker wrote: There's no right or wrong answer to this one. "Value" is a pretty human concept anyway.

Of course it is. We're all humans here; ANY concept we come at it with is a human one. Stating that doesn't get anyone anywhere, other than a hamster-wheel of existentialist nonsense. A question's being asked, and I think it deserves an answer beyond "Let's call the whole thing off because nothing really matters objectively".

There is no inherent value/worth in life except for how much value/worth one holds for their own and/or others. It's wrong to kill based upon law, but, it depends on what is being killed, too. It's illegal to kill a human without first having one's own life being threatened by that very human (with the exception of capital punishment). Depending on the type of animal, it is wrong to kill certain ones, also according to law.

On a personal level, you're going to get mixed responses based on each perspective. From a legal standpoint, you'll get cut-and-dry reasons, typically.

From my perspective when it comes to killing humans, I think it comes from necessity, e.g. self-defense, defense of others, combat, etc. When it comes to animals, I think it also comes from necessity, e.g. eating, self-defense, defense of others, humane reasons (too many to name), etc. Killing for no particular reason, or from aggression (aside from combat), for sport, from boredom, etc., would be wrong. There are going to be many angles to look at it from because, as I said, different perspectives will give you varied results. Don't know how else to answer without writing a small book of different scenarios and cases.

Wickham wrote: My issue with this topic in the first place is that, like I said, whenever we wring up the question of "Inherent worth" the answer will ALWAYS be that there is none. There's no objective value to anything (at least in my opinion).

I think the question we should be asking is, "How much value should we elect to put in life, and how can we justify putting one life above another, if that's the case?"

Not quite. this is what inherent worth means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(ethics)

Meaning that life has a value of itself.

"'Tis nothing good or evil, but thinking makes it so." —Hamlet

There is no inherent worth of anything.

However I find that completely irrelevant.

This complex monkey sees plenty of worth, value, good, evil, light, dark, loss, gain, pain pleasure, happiness, sadness,etc,etc in life.

Because I am not an inanimate object.

Because life without these things is not life at all.

Its just existing.

Like a rock...but I had the good fortune to not be a rock, but one complicated, complex, thinking monkey and why not enjoy that?

Susan Sto-helit: "Grandad."
Death: "Yes?"
Susan Sto-helit: "Why? I mean. Why did you do all this?"
Death: "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom? Quite astonishing." Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather

Some scientists study atoms. But scientists are made of atoms. So atoms are in fact studying themselves... isn't that the most peculiar thing? We are the universe studying itself, discovering itself.

What is something without its environment? How do you understand male without female? Lungs without air? The digestion system without food? Food without animals? We are not separate from the environment, we are a part of the environment.

Isn't self-respect one of the most important conditions for Living?

If you understand that we are the environment then respect for all life is simply a logical extension. Respect for other life is respect for ourselves.

Ren is correct, inherent worth [value] doesn't mean 'objectively true worth [value]'. The line reads:

Jedi believe in the Force, and Jedi believe in the worth [value] of all life within the Force for life's own sake.

We also believe that 'moral concepts are not absolute' so we accept that others might not share our view of the value of life.