Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage
I appreciate your answer, I am not sure I am fully grasping your position though. Is it that market forces determine the moral value of people vs. property specific to the context in which they are weighed, by the person doing the weighing?
If so, I am curious? Does your answer to the scenario about what the homeowner should do vary if you put yourself in the position of the homeowner? Ie assume its your house.
Would it be right to assume that the homeowner's actions are justified by their individual relationship to their house?
|
I'm not directly addressing the OP's point - I'm disagreeing that there is a dilemma present.
Things we know:
1. People do not value other people's lives equally. I believe this is self evident. (We would not save a stranger instead of our child.)
2. People do not value lives above property. They value
some lives above property, depending on their relationship. This is almost a universal truth, with very few exceptions. We know this because almost every individual on the planet does not use their excess financial capacity to maximize the wellbeing of strangers.
So the scenario that the OP defines isn't a dilemma at all. It is simply a single data point in the marketplace. The "decider" in this case, is assessing the value (to the decider) of the human life in question and making a decision.
Some posters here have suggested that human life has a universal and sacrosanct value. This is not an absolute truth, although it is a reflection of how that poster values the life in question here. (My theory is that his view is simply a reflection of the increased value we put on life if we are in close proximity). Humanity has made it quite clear that the value of human life is not absolute, it is relative.