ARTICLE: Life Unworthy of Life

[STR Ambassador]

Life Unworthy of Life

by Greg Koukl

The debate over Terri Schiavo's fate reminded me of a book I read a while back. What happens when we cross the line of respecting the intrinsic value of human life and say that some lives are just not worth living? That question was dealt with in "The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Jay Lifton (Basic Books).

The book describes the Nazi's program of euthanasia. (The word comes from the Greek "eu" meaning good, and "thanatos" meaning death--i.e. "good death.") Here’s the slippery-slope as it occurred in Nazi Germany according to Lifton. First, all children three years of age and under who were even suspected of idiocy, mongolism, microancephaly or hydrocephaly, malformation of limbs, head or spinal column, or paralysis including spastic conditions were all put into a group called "The Children's Specialty Department" and trucked to killing centers.

Eventually, juvenile delinquents began to be euthanized, and then Jewish-Aryan half-breeds began to be euthanized. At the same time there was another project under a camouflage organization called "The Reich Group of Sanitarium and Nursing Homes" with the goal of euthanizing elderly people. Before long it was not just the young and the old, but people in the middle being killed for political reasons and ethnic reasons. But it started with the young and elderly that were considered a drain on the resources of the state and who had “life unworthy of life.”

Notice the artful use of camouflage organizations with wholesome names and the manipulation of language that deceived the general population and made the unthinkable acceptable. For example, the children were transported to the thirty or more killing areas in vehicles marked "The Common Welfare Ambulance Service," "common welfare" being a euphemism for the extermination of undesirables for the benefit of others. They called it "therapy" and "healing."

It’s a basic debating rule never to invoke the image of jackbooted Nazis against an opponent. It’s over the top. The Third Reich was a singular horror. Americans, too civilized for such barbarities, take offense at the mere hint of parallels.

Even so, there is a frightening parallel that shouldn’t be ignored. We are arguing the same way as they about the same issue. We are using the same kind of language and the same kinds of justification offered 70 years ago to legitimize a grand “final solution.”

Profound acts evil are do not happen in great leaps, but in little steps. The very first step is taken when someone decides that there is a life that is unworthy of being lived. This phrase "life unworthy of life" is a Nazi term, by the way --lebensunwertes leben. Once we declare there is a life unworthy of life, then only one question remains to be answered: "Who are the ‘unworthy’?"

The fact is that “troublesome” groups in our culture--inconvenient unborn children, burdensome newborns with congenital defects, the severely handicapped like Terri Schiavo--are already being eliminated using this justification. They’re not terminal, just profoundly undesirable.

I’ve heard many people respond to reasoned arguments to protect Terri Schiavo’s life with the emotional challenge, “Would you want to live that way?” This the quality of life poison pill. When you swallow this pleasant sounding argument, you swallow poison, because a whole host of evil can be justified in this way.

My friends, saying that any innocent human life is not worthy of life is the first step. And we took that step over 30 years ago when we refused to protect innocent human life in the womb. We have slid a long way down the slope since then, and we’re still sliding. In Francis Schaeffer’s words, “What is unthinkable yesterday is thinkable today, and ordinary and commonplace tomorrow.”

Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org

[lee_merrill]

I’ve heard many people respond to reasoned arguments to protect Terri Schiavo’s life with the emotional challenge, “Would you want to live that way?” This the quality of life poison pill. When you swallow this pleasant sounding argument, you swallow poison, because a whole host of evil can be justified in this way.

Jesus teaches another way, the way of the cross, God's ways are not our ways, "For when I am weak, then I am strong."

My friends, saying that any innocent human life is not worthy of life is the first step. And we took that step over 30 years ago when we refused to protect innocent human life in the womb.

The quality of life is not what others can give us, but what we can give them. The Nazis certainly missed that point.

God bless you,
Lee

[HRG_new]

I’ve heard many people respond to reasoned arguments to protect Terri Schiavo’s life with the emotional challenge, “Would you want to live that way?” This the quality of life poison pill. When you swallow this pleasant sounding argument, you swallow poison, because a whole host of evil can be justified in this way.

Fallacy of the slippery slope. And if it can be justified, why are you so sure that it is evil ?

Of course, the relevant question is not the above one, but "Would she have wanted to live that way?". Once the answer is no, the debate is over.

Life may be a high value, but it is a personal value. Each one of us may decide how much his own life is worth.

BTW, someone who lives where he has no right or permission to live, feeds on which he has no right or permission to feed, and injects someone else with potentially harmful hormones may be "innocent", but only in the sense that a somnambulist is innocent.

[lee_merrill]

Fallacy of the slippery slope. And if it can be justified, why are you so sure that it is evil ?

Certainly Mr. Koukl means it's a false justification. And is there no progression in evil? Are not some deeds worse than others? And is the next step in evil not easier, the farther a person is, along this progression, assuming there is one?

Of course, the relevant question is not the above one, but "Would she have wanted to live that way?". Once the answer is no, the debate is over.

Is it, though? Should we not try and save someone from jumping off a building?

Life may be a high value, but it is a personal value. Each one of us may decide how much his own life is worth.

That's a rather astonishing claim! People don't do this about diamonds, how can this be true, therefore, of people? Even of ourselves?

BTW, someone who lives where he has no right or permission to live, feeds on which he has no right or permission to feed, and injects someone else with potentially harmful hormones may be "innocent", but only in the sense that a somnambulist is innocent.

I'm not sure what you mean here, though...

Blessings,
Lee

[C. D. Ward]

Is it, though? Should we not try and save someone from jumping off a building?
Of course, but to what lengths do we go?
That's a rather astonishing claim! People don't do this about diamonds, how can this be true, therefore, of people? Even of ourselves?
Ummm...what? :huh: Imagine offering a choice to a man dying of starvation on a desert island: a diamond or a sandwich. Which do you suppose he will choose? Obviously diamonds are not inherently valuable, and neither is anything else: value presupposes a valuer. As the owner of my life, it is my right to determine its value. To argue that you, or anyone else, has a right to determine for me the ultimate end of my own life is to reduce me to the status of a slave.

The whole "value of life" argument is a smokescreen designed to generate an emotional response from a particular target audience while distracting them from the real issues presented. This case is not and never was a "right to life" issue. It is solely about the right of an individual to self-determination. We can certainly argue about whether that individual's right of self-determination is being preserved here (i.e., has the court duly pursued the truth of that matter?), but equating this to anti-abortion or "right-to-life" arguments is pure fallacy.

[BronzeArcher]

Nothing is inherently valuable? Lol. It's amusing that you say that and then claim rights. Yeah, you see this, it's actually worthless, but I say it has worth...:hehe:

[C. D. Ward]

Nothing is inherently valuable? Lol. It's amusing that you say that and then claim rights. Yeah, you see this, it's actually worthless, but I say it has worth...:hehe:
There's no contradiction present in what I said. I maintain that value is the result of a subject/object interaction. Objects are only valuable insofar as there are subjects that value them. I, the subject, value my life, the object. A "right" is not the same thing as a value, so from the start there's an apples v. oranges comparison being made.

To be "inherent" would require that values exist in the objects themselves, without valuers. A claim that diamonds (or anything else for that matter) are inherently valuable is to claim that they would still be valuable even if there were no one around to value them; clearly an impossibility.

[BronzeArcher]

:smile: We may get around to debating this (as I did not provide argument) sometime. You'll also have to explain your value matrix (or send me a link), too.

[Pilgrim]

Life Unworthy of Life

by Greg Koukl

The debate over Terri Schiavo's fate reminded me of a book I read a while back. What happens when we cross the line of respecting the intrinsic value of human life and say that some lives are just not worth living? That question was dealt with in "The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Jay Lifton (Basic Books).

The book describes the Nazi's program of euthanasia. (The word comes from the Greek "eu" meaning good, and "thanatos" meaning death--i.e. "good death.") Here’s the slippery-slope as it occurred in Nazi Germany according to Lifton. First, all children three years of age and under who were even suspected of idiocy, mongolism, microancephaly or hydrocephaly, malformation of limbs, head or spinal column, or paralysis including spastic conditions were all put into a group called "The Children's Specialty Department" and trucked to killing centers.

Eventually, juvenile delinquents began to be euthanized, and then Jewish-Aryan half-breeds began to be euthanized. At the same time there was another project under a camouflage organization called "The Reich Group of Sanitarium and Nursing Homes" with the goal of euthanizing elderly people. Before long it was not just the young and the old, but people in the middle being killed for political reasons and ethnic reasons. But it started with the young and elderly that were considered a drain on the resources of the state and who had “life unworthy of life.”

Notice the artful use of camouflage organizations with wholesome names and the manipulation of language that deceived the general population and made the unthinkable acceptable. For example, the children were transported to the thirty or more killing areas in vehicles marked "The Common Welfare Ambulance Service," "common welfare" being a euphemism for the extermination of undesirables for the benefit of others. They called it "therapy" and "healing."

It’s a basic debating rule never to invoke the image of jackbooted Nazis against an opponent. It’s over the top. The Third Reich was a singular horror. Americans, too civilized for such barbarities, take offense at the mere hint of parallels.

Even so, there is a frightening parallel that shouldn’t be ignored. We are arguing the same way as they about the same issue. We are using the same kind of language and the same kinds of justification offered 70 years ago to legitimize a grand “final solution.”

Profound acts evil are do not happen in great leaps, but in little steps. The very first step is taken when someone decides that there is a life that is unworthy of being lived. This phrase "life unworthy of life" is a Nazi term, by the way --lebensunwertes leben. Once we declare there is a life unworthy of life, then only one question remains to be answered: "Who are the ‘unworthy’?"

The fact is that “troublesome” groups in our culture--inconvenient unborn children, burdensome newborns with congenital defects, the severely handicapped like Terri Schiavo--are already being eliminated using this justification. They’re not terminal, just profoundly undesirable.

I’ve heard many people respond to reasoned arguments to protect Terri Schiavo’s life with the emotional challenge, “Would you want to live that way?” This the quality of life poison pill. When you swallow this pleasant sounding argument, you swallow poison, because a whole host of evil can be justified in this way.

My friends, saying that any innocent human life is not worthy of life is the first step. And we took that step over 30 years ago when we refused to protect innocent human life in the womb. We have slid a long way down the slope since then, and we’re still sliding. In Francis Schaeffer’s words, “What is unthinkable yesterday is thinkable today, and ordinary and commonplace tomorrow.”

Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org
Staw man. The only question of relevance in the Schiavo case is, "What did she want? What were her instructions." The questino of life worth living is not one that her husband or the courts is considering. They are only applying the law as it concerns Terri's instructions for her end of life circumstances. Let's not dirty the waters with comparisons to Nazi's et. al. It's insulting to the people who were affected by those evil regimes.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Obviously diamonds are not inherently valuable, and neither is anything else: value presupposes a valuer. As the owner of my life, it is my right to determine its value.

That is the current consensus! That values are not real. I would disagree, there is real beauty in the world, in a diamond, in a person, and we can indeed recognize it, and this is not merely a personal choice.

To argue that you, or anyone else, has a right to determine for me the ultimate end of my own life is to reduce me to the status of a slave.

Well, this is the same argument again! No, I'm not saying I have the right to put price tags on people and diamonds, any more than you do, I'm saying (and I think I'm following Koukl) that there are real values we can recognize, independent even of what we might think the value is.

This case is not and never was a "right to life" issue. It is solely about the right of an individual to self-determination.

But if life is inherently valuable, then we should (sometimes, at least) stop the person from jumping off the building. We apparently agree that this is right in some cases, and I think that is enough to illustrate the principle, self-determination does not have full sway.

A claim that diamonds (or anything else for that matter) are inherently valuable is to claim that they would still be valuable even if there were no one around to value them; clearly an impossibility.

Then rights are not inherently valuable? You seem to value them, in the same way I would value more concrete concepts, people, and objects. Is valuing rights a value that is a personal choice? May I not apply your principle here?

The only question of relevance in the Schiavo case is, "What did she want? What were her instructions."

But again, we have to ask if life is inherently valuable, which indicates whether we can choose to end even our own life at will, and whether someone should stop us if we try…

Blessings,
Lee

[Pilgrim]

Hi everyone,



That is the current consensus! That values are not real. I would disagree, there is real beauty in the world, in a diamond, in a person, and we can indeed recognize it, and this is not merely a personal choice.



Well, this is the same argument again! No, I'm not saying I have the right to put price tags on people and diamonds, any more than you do, I'm saying (and I think I'm following Koukl) that there are real values we can recognize, independent even of what we might think the value is.



But if life is inherently valuable, then we should (sometimes, at least) stop the person from jumping off the building. We apparently agree that this is right in some cases, and I think that is enough to illustrate the principle, self-determination does not have full sway.



Then rights are not inherently valuable? You seem to value them, in the same way I would value more concrete concepts, people, and objects. Is valuing rights a value that is a personal choice? May I not apply your principle here?



But again, we have to ask if life is inherently valuable, which indicates whether we can choose to end even our own life at will, and whether someone should stop us if we try…

Blessings,
Lee
In a democratic society, a pluralistic one, we can not ask that question in such a way that legislation can be passed. It would mean applying a relgious moral standard of personal level onto all people even if they did not understand the sanctity of life in the same way we do.

[C. D. Ward]

That is the current consensus! That values are not real. I would disagree, there is real beauty in the world, in a diamond, in a person, and we can indeed recognize it, and this is not merely a personal choice.
The fact that values are subjective does not necessarily make them any less real. My recognition that an item is valuable stems from its relationship to me and the context in which we both exist, all of which are objective.

As an example, food and water are valuable to living agents. The value is subjective (if the agents didn't exist, the value wouldn't exist), but it's certainly real (in the sense that it's not imaginary; the value exists whether or not you want it to) in that the reason why they are valuable is the relationship and context in which they exist (biological necessity for survival).
Well, this is the same argument again! No, I'm not saying I have the right to put price tags on people and diamonds, any more than you do, I'm saying (and I think I'm following Koukl) that there are real values we can recognize, independent even of what we might think the value is.
Koukl appears to be saying that value is inherent, which would mean that it exists regardless of whether the subject exists or not (because it inheres in the object alone). This seems to me to contradict the very meaning of the word value.

I would agree that values are real; that they reflect a relation between subject and object that is a reality due to the nature of both subject and object. But this doesn't make them any less subjective. Values would not, could not, exist without a subject to perceive that relationship and assign it the term "value".
But if life is inherently valuable, then we should (sometimes, at least) stop the person from jumping off the building. We apparently agree that this is right in some cases, and I think that is enough to illustrate the principle, self-determination does not have full sway.
Actually, not only does it not do that, but carried to it's logical conclusion, it would also necessitate that we outlaw smoking, drinking, overeating, and recreational parachuting, among thousands of other life-threatening activities...

Self-determination must be recognized as the unalienable right of a moral agent if the concept of moral agency is to hold any content. IOW, the very concept of "moral agent" seems to me to contain the concept of "self-determination". If I do not "own myself", how can I be morally responsible for my own actions? If my life is not my own, to whom does it belong? If I am not free, then I am a slave...

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Pilgrim: In a democratic society, a pluralistic one, we can not ask that question in such a way that legislation can be passed. It would mean applying a religious moral standard of personal level onto all people even if they did not understand the sanctity of life in the same way we do.

I agree that atheists should not be required to keep the sabbath! Yet are there no moral principles that everyone should subscribe to? This boils down again to whether there are inherent values, it seems, for if there are not, then laws that apply to everyone are indeed inappropriate. "My personal value is that people are proper items on my menu…"

C.D. Ward: The fact that values are subjective does not necessarily make them any less real. My recognition that an item is valuable stems from its relationship to me and the context in which we both exist, all of which are objective.

But that gives up intrinsic value, which is what is being argued for here. Certainly a hammer can be more valuable than a diamond, if you want to build a house. But picking up a hammer to drive a nail doesn't remove the beauty from a diamond, that value is actually intrinsic, I think.

I would agree that values are real; that they reflect a relation between subject and object that is a reality due to the nature of both subject and object.

But not all values are in a relation! Is a flower in a desert not beautiful if no one sees it? What if I then take a picture of it? Beauty does not somehow suddenly become part of the flower, nor does it somehow become valuable now.

Now it may become valuable to me, but this can be because (if I have proper insight - according to my view here) I see the intrinsic value. I can certainly value it in a bad way, to poke it in my lapel and show off. But I can also recognize value that was there, before I knew of this particular flower…

… carried to it's logical conclusion, it would also necessitate that we outlaw smoking, drinking, overeating, and recreational parachuting, among thousands of other life-threatening activities…

But the dividing line is at throwing a life away, not at risking it. The first decision must (at least sometimes) be stopped, do we not agree? Then self-determination does not have full sway, and even if we do not hover over people like the prisoners in a 24-hour watch cell, we must consider it a real loss if they take that course of action.

Self-determination must be recognized as the unalienable right of a moral agent if the concept of moral agency is to hold any content.

Then we should never stop a suicide. I thought we had agreed that sometimes we should, though.

If I do not "own myself", how can I be morally responsible for my own actions?

Yes, accountability hinges on decisions. Yet value does not…

If my life is not my own, to whom does it belong?

To the creator?

Blessings,
Lee

[C. D. Ward]

But that gives up intrinsic value, which is what is being argued for here. Certainly a hammer can be more valuable than a diamond, if you want to build a house. But picking up a hammer to drive a nail doesn't remove the beauty from a diamond, that value is actually intrinsic, I think.
The point was that value/beauty are context sensitive; they are not intrinsic. If they were, then a diamond would always be more valuable than a hammer. But it's not, which vitiates intrinsicity.
But not all values are in a relation! Is a flower in a desert not beautiful if no one sees it? What if I then take a picture of it? Beauty does not somehow suddenly become part of the flower, nor does it somehow become valuable now.
Without a valuer (i.e., someone to see it), the flower isn't beautiful any more than a diamond sitting in the middle of the desert would be valuable. There is the potential for beauty/value due to the fact that there are valuers around who might stumble across them. But only if they're perceived can that potential be actualized...
Now it may become valuable to me, but this can be because (if I have proper insight - according to my view here) I see the intrinsic value. I can certainly value it in a bad way, to poke it in my lapel and show off. But I can also recognize value that was there, before I knew of this particular flower…
The point really isn't so much to recognize a particular flower, or a particular valuer. The point is that value cannot exist without valuers. Would a flower still be beautiful without even the possibility that there might be anyone around to see it (i.e., if no humans existed)? Certainly the flower still has it's physical features, but what renders it beautiful? "Beauty" is a judgement; it requires a judge...
But the dividing line is at throwing a life away, not at risking it. The first decision must (at least sometimes) be stopped, do we not agree? Then self-determination does not have full sway, and even if we do not hover over people like the prisoners in a 24-hour watch cell, we must consider it a real loss if they take that course of action.
From my point of view, people who skydive are suicidal... :hehe:

I think my point still stands. If life is intrinsically valuable, to the extent that we should interfere with someone's rational decision to kill themselves (see below), then we should certainly interfere as well with all activities that place individuals at great risk of losing their lives that do not provide some gain commensurate with such a sacrifice. Smoking, drinking to excess, obesity, race car driving, skydiving, etc. are all activities that, while they certainly provide enjoyment, do not provide a benefit that reasonably outweighs the risks involved. Therefore, to be consistent we should at the very least regulate them strongly...
Then we should never stop a suicide. I thought we had agreed that sometimes we should, though.
IMO, the only reason to stop a suicide is a lack of rationality. When we have situations in which we have good reason to question whether an end-of-life decision is being made rationally, then we do have good reason to step in and thwart it. Example: individuals in severe depression may decide to end their lives, but their decision is based on a reaction to a chemical imbalance in their brain, not anything "real" about their situation. With the proper psychopharmacology, the imbalance can be resolved and the desire to suicide eliminated.

Individuals in intense, unremitting, interminable pain (such that drugs cannot remediate it without rendering the individual unconscious) can be seen to indeed have a rational reason to choose suicide. Once depression or other mental imbalance has been ruled out as a cause, we have an obligation to respect an individual's agent sovereignty.
Yes, accountability hinges on decisions. Yet value does not…
To a certain extent, I agree. We don't necessarily decide to value things; value is a relationship, one over which we don't always have control. For example, I value physical sustenance because I can't live without it, but I can't choose not to as I have no control over the physical requirements of my body.
To the creator?
I'm God's chattel? I reject that idea as offensive both to God and man. It makes man a slave and God a slaveowner.

[lee_merrill]

Hi C.D.,

Lee: But picking up a hammer to drive a nail doesn't remove the beauty from a diamond, that value is actually intrinsic…

CDW: The point was that value/beauty are context sensitive; they are not intrinsic. If they were, then a diamond would always be more valuable than a hammer.

But the point I am after is that admiring a diamond in the light doesn't mean a hammer is not suddenly inherently useless. Sure, I may not need the hammer now, but it's inherent value doesn't go up and down with my need or lack of need for it, nor does the diamond become less beautiful if I am building a table.

And values can be in different areas, we need not assign "value 10" to a diamond, and "value 8" to a hammer, with the same unit of measure.

CDW: Without a valuer (i.e., someone to see it), the flower isn't beautiful any more than a diamond sitting in the middle of the desert would be valuable.

This is the heart of the matter, so then if I lose one flower in a bouquet I am carrying, does that flower then cease to be beautiful? If I notice the loss, and retrace my steps, does it then become beautiful again? If I forget the bouquet on the bus, does it then again lose its beauty?

Does forgetfulness remove beauty, too?

CDW: "Beauty" is a judgment; it requires a judge…

Then what is "good judgment"?

"Good taste" in clothes, even?

Are these concepts meaningless?

CDW: If life is intrinsically valuable, to the extent that we should interfere with someone's rational decision to kill themselves (see below), then we should certainly interfere as well with all activities that place individuals at great risk of losing their lives…

We do, actually, that's what speed limit signs are doing, and "don't pass" stripes on the road, and seatbelt laws. All activities entailing needless, substantial risk of life should be (and are, in general) curtailed.

CDW: Individuals in intense, unremitting, interminable pain (such that drugs cannot remediate it without rendering the individual unconscious) can be seen to indeed have a rational reason to choose suicide.

There are other rational reasons to persevere, though, in a Christian framework, especially if life does not end at death, and if there can be good results even from unremitting pain, and supernatural help to bear it.

CDW: We don't necessarily decide to value things; value is a relationship, one over which we don't always have control. For example, I value physical sustenance because I can't live without it, but I can't choose not to…

That's intrinsic value, though, is it not? Even if a relationship is fixed, here…

CDW: I'm God's chattel? I reject that idea as offensive both to God and man. It makes man a slave and God a slaveowner.

"Chattel" I would not subscribe to, that's a bit pejorative, but "slave" is indeed part of what I consider myself to be…

Romans 1:1 Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus…
James 1:1 James, a slave of God…
Jude 1:1 Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ…

Not that that's the sum of the relationship!

John 15:15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends…

So God is not a slaveowner. But if God exists, and we disobey God, then we must know better than God does, or God does not have our best interest at heart, or we're willing to settle for second best. I think that's all the alternatives…

Blessings,
Lee

[Hopper122]

Hi

I have a question for C.D.

If the value is based only upon how much it is valued by valuers. Then why for the life of a person do you only take into account that person and not other people? I do value my life, but is that the only reason my life has value? What about the value that my family and friends put upon my life? And should Christians not also take into account the value that God has put upon a person?

Ok, so if you are going to tell me it is b/c a person owns themselves then would you have not changed your definition of value? For value would no longer be how much it is valued by valuers but rather how much it is valued by it's owner. If that is true then anything I don't own has no value to me. But I do value things that I don't own and I also value things that I can't own. And I value things b/c other people value them.

So if my understanding of your position is correct then why do you believe that
The value of any object (other than people) is based upon how much it is valued by valuers. But that the value of a person is only based upon how much it is valued by that person.

Thanks
Blessings

[C. D. Ward]

But the point I am after is that admiring a diamond in the light doesn't mean a hammer is not suddenly inherently useless. Sure, I may not need the hammer now, but it's inherent value doesn't go up and down with my need or lack of need for it, nor does the diamond become less beautiful if I am building a table.

And values can be in different areas, we need not assign "value 10" to a diamond, and "value 8" to a hammer, with the same unit of measure.
Useless v. useful or beautiful v. ugly is not the point. The point is that if value were truly intrinsic, context would be irrelevant by definition. "Intrinsic" means essentially "from within" and context is an external consideration. So a diamond would always be worth more than a hammer, regardless of the context involved. But reflection shows us that it's not in this case. Indeed, I've yet to see any case where the same argument cannot be made, and therefore I see no reason to believe that value is intrinsic in any way.
This is the heart of the matter, so then if I lose one flower in a bouquet I am carrying, does that flower then cease to be beautiful? If I notice the loss, and retrace my steps, does it then become beautiful again? If I forget the bouquet on the bus, does it then again lose its beauty?

Does forgetfulness remove beauty, too?
I have no idea how forgetfulness got brought into this or how you believe it applies to this argument nor do I understand the point you're making here. :huh:
Then what is "good judgment"?

"Good taste" in clothes, even?

Are these concepts meaningless?
Again, :huh: These appear to me to be non sequiturs; I don't see how they follow at all from anything that I've said.
We do, actually, that's what speed limit signs are doing, and "don't pass" stripes on the road, and seatbelt laws. All activities entailing needless, substantial risk of life should be (and are, in general) curtailed.
Yes, but we don't stop people from driving. But accepting this approach arguendo, you should find suicide acceptable, as long as we regulate it appropriately (i.e., consult a psychiatrist, a physician, use painless methods, bring family members into the decision, etc). If that's acceptable to you, then we actually agree on this point.
There are other rational reasons to persevere, though, in a Christian framework, especially if life does not end at death, and if there can be good results even from unremitting pain, and supernatural help to bear it.
Sure, and there are even many non-religious persons who might also find rational reasons to perservere. But finding a reason to perservere is a different thing entirely from being forced to perservere. The former is wholly acceptable. The latter is slavery.
That's intrinsic value, though, is it not? Even if a relationship is fixed, here…
It's not. If "value" is the product of a relationship between object and subject (as I believe it is), it's not intrinsic in any way as intrinsicity can come only from the object itself.
"Chattel" I would not subscribe to, that's a bit pejorative, but "slave" is indeed part of what I consider myself to be...

<snip>

So God is not a slaveowner. But if God exists, and we disobey God, then we must know better than God does, or God does not have our best interest at heart, or we're willing to settle for second best. I think that's all the alternatives…
Slaves are chattel. The term may seem perjorative, but then, so is "slave". IIRC, the general understanding of the word "slave" as frequently employed in the Bible is that it should often be translated more like "servant". It's possible that this is the meaning intended in the sorts of passages you present. For myself, I simply cannot conceive of worshipping a being that claims to own me; the very thought is repugnant.

But it's really beside the point. Christians may choose to believe themselves the property of God. That doesn't necessitate that secular law must do the same.

[C. D. Ward]

Hi
:hi:
If the value is based only upon how much it is valued by valuers. Then why for the life of a person do you only take into account that person and not other people? I do value my life, but is that the only reason my life has value? What about the value that my family and friends put upon my life? And should Christians not also take into account the value that God has put upon a person?
That's actually a bunch of questions! :smile:

I didn't say that "value is based only upon how much it is valued...", but rather that the existence of any value is based upon the existence of valuers. How much any given object is valued depends upon the valuer, the object, and the context.

As far as the life of any given person, they may indeed have value to other individuals. What gives value to an individual's life will vary based on the perspective. From my perspective, my life has value to me. From my wife's perspective, my life has value to her. In both cases, however, it is the relationship between valuer and the object valued that creates the value: Me/my life or my wife/my life. The value that my wife puts upon my life is of primary issue only to my wife. It may certainly factor into my own valuation of my life, but generally as it pertains to how I value my wife (i.e., I wouldn't want her to suffer needlessly by my death).

And, by extension, Christians certainly can (and do, I'm sure) take into account the value that God puts on a person. A Christian may indeed increase her own self-valuation given her belief that God values her life.

But that doesn't mean that a Christian can dictate to me that my life is more valuable becase God values it. Ultimately, in the legal sense (and moral as well, from my viewpoint), individuals are autonomous, empowered to order their lives as they see fit.
Ok, so if you are going to tell me it is b/c a person owns themselves then would you have not changed your definition of value? For value would no longer be how much it is valued by valuers but rather how much it is valued by it's owner. If that is true then anything I don't own has no value to me. But I do value things that I don't own and I also value things that I can't own. And I value things b/c other people value them.
:huh: Hmmm...I think you're making an unwarranted assumption here. Namely that an "owner" cannot also be a "valuer". Why must that be true? I can certainly value things I own (I really like my car!). I own my life and I value it as well. Where is the necessary conflict?
So if my understanding of your position is correct then why do you believe that
The value of any object (other than people) is based upon how much it is valued by valuers. But that the value of a person is only based upon how much it is valued by that person.
Okay, let me see if I can clarify.

I maintain that the existence of value is predicated upon the existence of valuers. Without valuers there is no value. This says nothing about quantity of value, merely its existence, so the value of an object is not based upon how much it is valued by valuers, but that it is valued at all. Nor does that mean that objects need be more highly valued in order to have value at all. IOW, objects that are not valued very much are still valued (I like pencils, but I could do without them; this doesn't mean that they aren't valuable at all).

The concept of comparative value (the diamond/hammer example) was introduced as an argument by analogy to vitiate the concept of intrinsicity, not to demonstrate the creation of value. Is that perhaps where the confusion has arisen?

Finally, I am not arguing that the "value of a person is only based upon how much it is valued by that person". I would say that the "value of a person" has two elements: first-person and third-person. Third-person is the value we place on the lives of others (Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man). First-person is the value we place on our own lives. While these are certainly inter-related, in the sense that our own self-worth may be influenced by how others value us or vice versa, the question we've been discussing here concerns not only value, but also the rights of the individual. My contention is that ultimately it must not, can not be the valuation that others place upon our lives that has any necessary (read: force of law) constraint on our right to determine for ourselves the course of our own lives. And here is perhaps where the concept of ownership comes into play.

If I own a car, I have the right to decide what to do with it. My neighbor's desire to possess my car does not in any way constrain me from driving it to the junkyard and destroying it if I wish. I am under no obligation to satisfy my neighbor's desire for a new car by giving it to him, even if my only alternative is to trash it. So with my own life. As it's owner, I have the ultimate right to decide its disposition. My neighbor's desire that I should perservere in the face of interminable misery (or whatever) can motivate no necessary constraint (again, force of law) to that right. To argue otherwise is to argue that I am not my own property, but my neighbor's. And that is slavery.

[Hopper122]

Hi C.D. Thanks for replying

And your right I did have more than one question :teeth:

I did not mean that a owner could not value what he/she owns. Rather I thought you said that a value of a life was only based upon the value that person put on it and not everyone else. But you did clarify that so thank you.

I guess I still have a few more questions. Outside of self-sacrifice, do you think a person can make a rational decision to kill himself? That is a healthy person at that point in time. I think it is different to say that if I get into a car wreck and am rushed to the hospital put on a bunch of machines and the Dr. says "We can keep his body 'going' as long as you want but he will never be able to live without of all this [medical jargon]". But maybe that is what you think (I can't tell)? You used "perservere" I would use preserve.

Also when you say that you have a car and have the right to do with it as you wish. I agree. However, I would say that responsibility should come into play. If a person owned a great work of art by Leonardo da Vinci, I think it would be morally wrong for them to use it as a tablecloth. Do they have the right to use it as a tablecloth? Yes, but does that make it ok? I would say no. Just wondering what your thoughts on that was.

Blessings