Science of Morality

[seer]

Well it would be nice if you would define intrinsic value for me then, because it seems that philosophers can't even come to agreement on a coherent explanation for the concept. So what do you mean by human beings having intrinsic value as compared to the housefly which you implied does not?

intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing .

So why would human being have intrinsic value? As opposed for instance a housefly?

[JimL]

intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing .

So why would human being have intrinsic value? As opposed for instance a housefly?

Actually seer, that was my question to you. You made the constrast between human beings and houseflies implying that the one, i.e. human beings, have intrinsic value, as opposed to houseflies which do not.

[seer]

Actually seer, that was my question to you. You made the constrast between human beings and houseflies implying that the one, i.e. human beings, have intrinsic value, as opposed to houseflies which do not.

I did not say that any creature had intrinsic value - that is what Tass said, and that all creatures have such value (including house flies).

[JimL]

I did not say that any creature had intrinsic value - that is what Tass said, and that all creatures have such value (including house flies).

I know you didn't say that, my point was that you implied just the opposite, i.e. that human beings have intrinsic value as compared to other creatures which do not. In other words your position is that intrinsic value is something that is only applicable to human beings. But you didn't define what you mean by intrinsic value.

[Tassman]

But that still does not equal intrinsic value Tass, it is subjective value however.

Using you definition of ‘intrinsic’ (in #303 and in #316), namely “having a quality essential to its nature”, the quality essential to our nature is ‘survival’ and being a social species it is instinctive and essential that we ‘value’ the fellow members of our species as a survival mechanism.

I did not say that any creature had intrinsic value - that is what Tass said, and that all creatures have such value (including house flies).

That’s not what I said. I said the intrinsic quality of all living creatures was the ‘survival instinct’ which, in the case of a social species such as us manifests itself in valuing our fellows... we can only survive in community, we cannot survive alone.

[seer]

I know you didn't say that, my point was that you implied just the opposite, i.e. that human beings have intrinsic value as compared to other creatures which do not. In other words your position is that intrinsic value is something that is only applicable to human beings. But you didn't define what you mean by intrinsic value.

Jim, I did not imply anything. I did not go there. And I defined intrinsic way back - even before I defined it for you.

[seer]

Using you definition of ‘intrinsic’ (in #303 and in #316), namely “having a quality essential to its nature”, the quality essential to our nature is ‘survival’ and being a social species it is instinctive and essential that we ‘value’ the fellow members of our species as a survival mechanism.

This makes no sense. We can value our fellow man without relying on an intrinsic characteristic. And just because valuing our fellow man helps survival does not mean that we have intrinsic value. In you model our value is dependent on what it helps to produce - survival. That is not intrinsic, it is utilitarian. See Tass, if human value really was intrinsic we would be valuable even if we did not further survival. Our value would not depend on what we produced.

[Tassman]

This makes no sense. We can value our fellow man without relying on an intrinsic characteristic.

No you can’t. We “value our fellow man” because our survival as a social species depends upon it…sociality is an evolved survival mechanism for animals such as us. Conversely many animals are solitary creatures, e.g. Bears and Orangutans, and don’t value their fellows outside of mating and nurturing.

And just because valuing our fellow man helps survival does not mean that we have intrinsic value. In you model our value is dependent on what it helps to produce - survival. That is not intrinsic, it is utilitarian. See Tass, if human value really was intrinsic we would be valuable even if we did not further survival. Our value would not depend on what we produced.

I used your own definition of “intrinsic”, namely “having a quality essential to its nature” and ‘survival’ is what’s intrinsic to all living things…from humans to houseflies. I did not say that “human value” was ‘intrinsic’ in and of itself; it’s of value only inasmuch as it facilitates survival.

[seer]

I used your own definition of “intrinsic”, namely “having a quality essential to its nature” and ‘survival’ is what’s intrinsic to all living things…from humans to houseflies. I did not say that “human value” was ‘intrinsic’ in and of itself; it’s of value only inasmuch as it facilitates survival.

Then human value it is not intrinsic Tass. Intrinsic means it has a quality in and of itself, that is the very definition. Our value would not depend on what we "facilitate," or not. Well I'm glad we settled that!

[Tassman]

Then human value it is not intrinsic Tass. Intrinsic means it has a quality in and of itself, that is the very definition. Our value would not depend on what we "facilitate," or not. Well I'm glad we settled that!

Sigh! I didn't said it was, seer, I said that the 'survival instinct' was intrinsic not "human value". Although, that said, we value our fellow man as a direct consequence of the survival instinct because our survival as a social species depends upon it.

[JimL]

Jim, I did not imply anything. I did not go there. And I defined intrinsic way back - even before I defined it for you.

You defined intrinsic, not intrinsic value which you apply to humans as opposed to other animals. I think what you actually mean is intrinsic quality, as value itself is not intrinsic. Value is what worth, what good, or what usefulness one thing has to something else. In other words you are refering to the value that you believe human beings have in the eyes of god as opposed to other animals. But of course if god doesn't exist, then you have no more value to god than does the common housefly.

[seer]

Sigh! I didn't said it was, seer, I said that the 'survival instinct' was intrinsic not "human value". Although, that said, we value our fellow man as a direct consequence of the survival instinct because our survival as a social species depends upon it.

Yes you did Tass, you said: Our “personal wants and desires” incorporate loved ones, extended family, the community and by extension ALL people. It’s the recognition of the intrinsic value of human life that’s resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…

[Tassman]

Yes you did Tass, you said: Our “personal wants and desires” incorporate loved ones, extended family, the community and by extension ALL people. It’s the recognition of the intrinsic value of human life that’s resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…

My exact words in #311, begin with the bolded (which I repeated from #309):

“The survival instinct is intrinsic to us as a species. And because we've evolved as a social species our ‘values’ are grounded in 'survival' via the maintenance of social units…initially manifested just within families and tribal units (like our fellow primates) but ultimately by extension to ALL people as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

And yet you see fit to totally misrepresent the argument by omitting the key sentence which I used twice. Why did you do this? Clearly the whole argument is grounded in ‘survival’ and how this is manifested by a social species such as us.

[seer]

My exact words in #311, begin with the bolded (which I repeated from #309):

“The survival instinct is intrinsic to us as a species. And because we've evolved as a social species our ‘values’ are grounded in 'survival' via the maintenance of social units…initially manifested just within families and tribal units (like our fellow primates) but ultimately by extension to ALL people as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

And yet you see fit to totally misrepresent the argument by omitting the key sentence which I used twice. Why did you do this? Clearly the whole argument is grounded in ‘survival’ and how this is manifested by a social species such as us.

Tass, I can't believe how you are fibbing here, in post 301 you said nothing about "survival instinct." You did not bring that up until I called you on the intrinsic value thing. Here is your original post in context:

Our “personal wants and desires” incorporate loved ones, extended family, the community and by extension ALL people. It’s the recognition of the intrinsic value of human life that’s resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…a concept unheard of in the past and most evident today in the more secular nations. And whilst there will always be anti-social people and rival communities we’re light years ahead of where we were in terms of social justice during say, the medieval era and beyond.

[Tassman]

Tass, I can't believe how you are fibbing here, in post 301 you said nothing about "survival instinct." You did not bring that up until I called you on the intrinsic value thing. Here is your original post in context:

I elaborated on my #301 statement in both #309 and #311, where I made clear that the intrinsic quality of all living creatures was the ‘survival instinct’ which, in the case of a social species such as us, manifests itself by valuing our fellows. In short, the valuing of our fellow man is a secondary characteristic of the survival instinct for a social species such as us; it's a survival mechanism.

So why have you by-passed the explanation of what I was actually saying as opposed to what you think I was saying? …easier to argue against a straw-man perhaps?

NB: Why haven't you responded to Jim's post #326 just above? We await your answer.