Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparks
Well, I think we need to decide how we want to define rationality. I think that values and beliefs are fundamental in every rational, scientific argument; therefore, you can't make a rational argument without making underlying value statements. For example, in Darfur, to get involved is to say that the value of human life outweighs economic possibilities and brownie points. We can even make a scientific argument as to why human life is important to us - why it's logical to value it highly.
The reasoning is logical in a sense, but an argument like that is nevertheless based on values. We would be saying that, in that particular case, we value our own security and economic interests more than we value the costs in terms of human life. We would need an awfully good rational argument to justify that tradeoff.
Again, I would say that would be a shift in values, not a shift towards more rationality.
|
That there is a "value" to human life really isn't the question scientifically. Of course we place a value on our own lives. But logically why should we bother with the lives of others who might cause our own deaths? So we have the value of our own lives vrs the value of other's lives. In that case we look at it from an economic, scientific and political point of view.
Economic --makes no sense. Not a market and cost money/lives.
Scientifc -- the removal of these people from the planet is likely a net benefit to us. They won't be educated so we don't miss out on their possible additions to our knowledge base. They would not be taking up valuable resources. They won't be adversely affecting the environment. On and on they are expendable.
Political -- we look good as we call for peace and don't interfere in the running of nation states.
Like I said it's a world we probably don't like but it's an easy way out and completely logical and scientific.
We just have to dump anything based on values to make it a much simpler world for us.