The value of life (No religion or politics).
Sort:
So basically the discussion started with my post about ants.
Nope the bacteria one right?
Mar 26, 2025
0
#4
AnishAce1 wrote:
Nope the bacteria one right?
Bacteria aren’t conscious, so I think that yes, it started with the comment about ants.
But the whole topic started with that one
No it started with my post about how killing an ant colony is killing a family, but they’re ants so their life doesn’t matter unless it’s useful to humans.
So, your argument, Chip?
Mar 26, 2025
0
#8
My argument is that not intelligence, size or any other factor make a species ultimately more valuable or worthy than another one.
I see. It’s the equivalent of equality, but for species.
I disagree. Society is a microcosm of the world. As in the times when civilisation didn’t exist, one needs to continuously adapt to the environment in order to survive. Because of their ability to do so, individuals get rank and prestige.
The same way, humans dominated the planet because of their remarkable ability to adapt and change. Eventually, society made them evolve and grow faster than natural evolution ever could.
The same way scholars are given importance and are considered valuable in academic programs, the capabilities of a species and its ability to change itself determines its worth.
Mar 27, 2025
0
#14
AG120502 wrote:
I disagree. Society is a microcosm of the world. As in the times when civilisation didn’t exist, one needs to continuously adapt to the environment in order to survive. Because of their ability to do so, individuals get rank and prestige.
Being able to adapt does make one likelier to survive. It would also make one probably superior to others, but I hold that this superiority would only be in ability. Does ability truly mark someone’s worth?
It would make one’s chances of living higher, but does this probability really make one more valuable?
Mar 27, 2025
0
#15
AG120502 wrote:
The same way scholars are given importance and are considered valuable in academic programs, the capabilities of a species and its ability to change itself determines its worth.
The thing is that the scholar’s worth in their field is attributed by other humans, and are only considered valuable in programs because they are useful to us.
Is the progress of a species beneficial to us, however? …Not really.
Based on the history of the world, I think so. The ones with eloquence have swayed the masses, the tricksters have controlled others decisions, and despite their cruelty, tyrants have reigned securely. All because of ability.
In other words, I believe that not only is equality impossible to achieve, but that inequality is necessary.
While a species’ progress is not beneficial to an individual apart from ease of living and such things, development of ability allows one to attain true freedom in a world in which we are chained by ourselves, society and a number of other things.
Mar 27, 2025
0
#19
AG120502 wrote:
Based on the history of the world, I think so. The ones with eloquence have swayed the masses, the tricksters have controlled others decisions, and despite their cruelty, tyrants have reigned securely. All because of ability.
This just makes them influential people.
I don’t believe the amount of influence they have gives them inherent worth as individuals. It just makes them important in that they have power to change things, but again, does not change their inherent worth.
Debate on the value of life, intrinsic value of humans and other living beings, and related topics.
Everyone is welcome to take part in the discussion and state their views and opinions.
Edit: This discussion was originally on OTFDAN, so please ignore the first few comments.