Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Before I get to the most interesting parts, I have to say: "You're partway to making a point"... "You're all failing Phil 100, you might as well not post." I took Philosophy as a minor, and even I can recognize that chances are, this is not going to be an elevated discussion on moral theory, so just relax and let people approach it at whatever level they're able to/want to approach it.
|
I mean, fine, but I'm not asking for some graduate level of expertise. I'm talking about philosophy 100. At the very least understand the question that's being asked - what determines how we ought to act - and provide an answer to that question that can be discussed. If you're not even engaging with the subject matter at all, then all of this is just... noise. It's a waste of time.
As far as you taking Phil as a minor, that's great, but in that case I am confused by the bulk of your post.
Quote:
|
Regarding what I haven't established is true, my point was based on if we accept it as true, because anything else veers into a territory of having to address the value of life, which people have spent years, written dissertations, and written entire books on. It's unlikely we'll get to the bottom of it here, but I'll explain my position.
|
If you just assume your moral theory is right, then you're skipping the only important thing in this discussion. What you do with the guy who's throwing a hypothetical explosive at a hypothetical building doesn't matter, that's just an intellectual tool to get at the root of the matter, which is what process people should use to decide how to get to the right answer if that situation arose - or any other situation, for that matter.
Quote:
|
Life, beyond just existing, has value in and of itself. I don't think this is controversial.
|
Oh, really? Anti-natalists would certainly argue with you, but that's beside the point. You can't start with a proposition that your value system is right automatically and just expect people to accept it. If you're going to say that life has crucial value, and that it should be obvious, it should be easy to explain why that is. This is particularly important because of what you say next...
Quote:
|
Specifically, consciousness has value in and of itself. It's not really definable, and it's not the highest value that exists (i.e. to simply live is not of greater value than living well) but I believe its value is foundational.
|
This is an important statement for several reasons. First, you've said that this is not the highest value that exists - that something makes a life more or less valuable ("living well"). If so, you're going to need to tell me what that higher value is, because that higher value is going to determine whether - for example - an item of property should be preserved at the expense of a life. In other words, if you admit that there's a higher value, you must also admit that where that higher value leads to a conclusion that life must be sacrificed, that's the way you'd have to go.
To use a slightly more specific example, many old school utilitarians would say that happiness is the highest possible value. Accordingly, where sacrificing life will lead to an increase in happiness, or a diminishment of misery, the life should be sacrificed. Obviously there are plenty of objections to utilitarianism and I don't propose to get into them if you're not a utilitarian - although it's not clear to me whether or not you are one. Based on what you've said, you might be a utilitarian who has substituted something else for "happiness" as the thing at the top of the pyramid to strive for - ie.
Quote:
|
This is also why the value of a specific life can at least be partially determined by the level of consciousness. A very early term fetus, or someone who has been in an accident and is declared brain dead, lack consciousness at some level (or a complete level) so their lives are of less value than yours or mine.
|
Okay. Couple of questions. First, is someone with no consciousness whatsoever - i.e., a person who is in a coma - completely without value? You seem to say not, because you say that value of life can be determined "partially" by reference to consciousness. What's the other thing, or things, that distinguish a coma patient from a corpse?
Second, suppose someone is fully conscious, but in constant physical pain, such that they, with full capacity, wish to terminate their life. Should we object to that more than we object to pulling the plug on the consciousness-less coma patient? If not, given your focus on the value being attributed to consciousness, why?
These questions aren't meant to be rhetorical, but I do hope that they have some rhetorical effect in that I'm trying to demonstrate why simply asserting values - i.e., life has value, consciousness has value, and having the defense that those values seem self-evident to you - is ultimately not convincing.
Quote:
|
Property has no intrinsic value at all. When we're talking about a home, what it provides has value (shelter, comfort, stability) but the house itself has none.
|
This seems self-contradictory. Isn't the house's value - in itself - determined by what it provides? I'd agree with you that the source of a house's value is tied to its utility, at least to some extent - that's why people want one. Given that you seem to acknowledge this, I don't understand the statement that the house itself has no value.
Quote:
|
An apartment where everyone can live comfortably has the same amount of value as a mansion where 50% of the rooms are not used.
|
I'm not sure this makes sense. People don't value houses purely for their utility, or we'd all live in non-descript square boxes and wouldn't care what they look like. Is aesthetics a value you see as worthwhile?
What about status - that's one reason why someone might value one house over another. Is that a real source of value? Is it more or less important that the other things you listed? If so, what is it that makes it more or less important?
Quote:
|
So, again, why is consciousness more valuable than property? Because you require consciousness to appreciate the value of property.
|
Okay, but if appreciation of the value of things is important, why wouldn't I value my property over your life - your consciousness? I can certainly safely conclude that I have consciousness - cogito ergo sum - but I can't be entirely certain about you. Moreover, perhaps even if I assume you are conscious, I don't appreciate your consciousness because it holds no value for me. Maybe I really don't like you and wish I never had to interact with you. In that circumstance, isn't it rational for me to value my property - which I do appreciate - over your life - which I don't?
The point here, which I hope is obvious, is that to the extent life has value, the source of that value surely can't be tied to its utility in terms of being able to appreciate external stimuli. Otherwise you get some moral conclusions that I suspect you'd shy away from.
Quote:
|
By killing the bomber, you're removing their consciousness completely, the thing that is the foundational value of everything else. Without consciousness, there is no possibility, there is nothing left to value, everything ceases to be. You take the basis for everything else and remove it to zero.
|
No I don't. I've only killed one person. There are plenty of people left to value things, including me. This is starting to sound like a deontological argument - i.e., you can't kill him, because if you universalized that and killed everyone, then your conclusion would obtain. But that wasn't the position you were trying to advance, was it? If it was, please correct me, because then at least we know where we stand.
Quote:
In the scenarios provided:
- The homeowner has insurance: The consequences of the bomber throwing the bomb become essentially nothing outside of momentary strife, and momentary strife is an inherent part of the human experience, so it is not acceptable to avoid it by causing the loss of a foundational value.
- The homeowner has some insurance: Same as above. Here you may lose some comfort and stability, but you're not taking these things down to zero.
- The homeowner has no insurance: You remove the value of comfort, stability, shelter, etc. While this represents a great loss of things which have value, they do not outweigh the value of consciousness as without it, they cannot be valued.
|
Again, we seem to be back to utilitarianism and weighing consequences in terms of a nebulous concept of value that you haven't properly defined. You're all over the place at this point.
Quote:
|
These things have value, but their value is replaceable, consciousness is not, and without consciousness, they have no value at all.
|
Consciousness is replaceable, in the sense that we can easily make more humans that will be equally conscious as the ones who died. In fact, if consciousness has value on its own, isn't that the moral thing to do? Have as many children as possible to add more conscious beings to the universe? Is that your prescription for a life well-lived?
This is what I meant by "partway to a point". There's the bones of something here that if fleshed out might make sense, but ultimately, your whole system of value is a bit disorganized and incomplete. You've said that there are other, higher values that you believe exist, in which case you need to get those sorted out and explain how they fit with this "consciousness" principle you've stood behind here. Because on its own, it leads to some very difficult-to-answer questions. If you have answers to them, though, I'm all ears.
