Tuesday, January 24, 2006

The Value of Life.

There is a Hierarchy of life. Let us assume for a moment that there are such beings as Angels and there is a God. If so then the value of life would be as follows:

1. - God
2. - Angels
3. - Humans
4. - Animals/Mammals/Birds/Fish/Etc.
5. - Insects/Bugs
6. - Plants
7. - Other


Now, when it comes to the Human link in the Chain we must ask ourselves if some human life is more valuable than others.

Let us look at the following scenario:

A Bus is on course to run over a dog or a six-year-old child and you must run and grab one of them and carry them to safety. Which would you choose? Most would choose the child because a human is more valuable than a dog.

Next, it is the choice between Hitler and the child. Which would you choose? Most would choose the child again because a child’s life is more valuable.


Next, a 70 year old lady or Hitler? Yep, the 70 year old lady.

This is the basis of why Conservatives can choose to execute a murderer without a sleepless night and has sleepless nights when they read about abortion. Not all life is of equal value.

Some on the left will agree but will value an old person as less valuable than a young murderer. Euthanasia has it's values backwards.

The above is my humble opinion.

34 Comments:

At 10:40 PM, Blogger Tex said...

A person who executes a murderer does not incur blood guilt.

 
At 2:21 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Tex,

You are referring to the one who pulls the switch in a justice system?

I don't think if we kill in self-defense we are held accountable either.

:)

FAR.

 
At 6:07 PM, Blogger Roseville Conservative said...

Good post FAR,

I could not agree with you more!

 
At 1:52 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

RC,

The sad fact is some people would grab the dog if it was a choice between their dog and a child who was a stranger.

:)

FAR.

 
At 11:48 AM, Blogger pappy said...

How many would push the child out of the way and take the hit themselves?

 
At 7:40 PM, Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

01 26 06

"Not all life is of equal value."

Hmmmm I don't know if I can accept that statement simply because of the slippery slope it leads to. And I say that if we are looking at human life. If not all human life is looked at as having equal value, then who is to determine who has less value and who has more? That is all really. This is a good post and makes us question the very creed of:"ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL." It does seem that when one violates the rights of another, that he reduces the value of his life in our society... Thanks for making us think!

 
At 8:05 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

MSR,

Yep, the very fact is that when we choose to save the child we "are" makeing a "value" judgement.

Now...it all depends upon what your definition of value is.. :)

Pappy,

Good thought! If the choice was us or the child, that would be the ultimate sacrifice and the ultimate value choice.

:)

FAR.

 
At 12:50 PM, Blogger jj said...

MSR If not all human life is looked at as having equal value, then who is to determine who has less value and who has more?

That is a great point. Who is to judge the value of a human life?

Easy to point out black and white situations like a choice between Hitler and a child. Most situations are not black and white. What about innocent people convicted and put to death? What should the penalty be for those that wrongly judged when it leads to an innocents death?


How about Hitler as a child?
Do you think he was born evil or was corrupted by religion and power later in life? Would you save Hitler as a child in that situation.

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

jj,

Also good points!

First, the "who" is the judicial system as far a murders go.

Next, when Hitler was a child, then he becomes the choice against someone else who is evil already.

It is a matter of consequences for our actions as to when society can judge that our life has become devalued by our actions. We don't live by emotions, but by law and law has already determined the value of life by having the death penalty and Abortionists have valued the life of a baby by their actions.

So, the values have already been made.

:)

FAR.

 
At 2:56 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

jj,

Also, your question "Do you think he was born evil or was corrupted...?"

There is great disagreement as to whether we are victums of our environment or do we have power over the choices we make with the influences of our environment?

I believe that if we were only products of our environments then GOD could not hold us accountable for evil actions. But, we have free will and can choose to ignore our temptations toward evil and the bible tells us that we will never be tempted beyond our means to withstand the temptations.

So, even thou Hitler was not born evil, he had a personality when he was born just like all of us and he made free choices to follow evil as he grew up. And so, GOD will judge him based upon those actions. We are what we think and do.

:)

FAR.

 
At 7:30 AM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

"Some on the left will agree but will value an old person as less valuable than a young murderer. "

Give the baby a name. Who on the left? When? Provide examples, please - real-life, relevant, brand-name examples.

Otherwise, it will be transparent that you're just engaging in what is commonly known as a slur.

 
At 9:21 AM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

Oh, and while we're on the subject, there's a movement afoot in the red states to allow wingnut doctors to opt out of caring for people that wingnuttery disfavors. Better not be a homo and have a traffic accident, huh?

Here's the article.

 
At 9:58 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

FAR -

I have read this post several times over and I am still wondering what is the point. This is not meant as an insult, but you are usually more substantive in your analysis.

 
At 12:12 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts,

said: "Who on the left?"

There are supporters of Euthanisa out there and there are plenty to choose from. The supporters are not on the right.

:)

FAR.

 
At 12:16 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

I guess I should have made the point more clear. I am forcing myself to be more succint. I guess I didn't have enough this time. :)

My point is the attempt to clarify why people can be "pro-life" when it comes to babies, and yet still be pro-death when it comes to capital punishment. Those who murder will find that society will not value their life as much as a baby or non-murderer.

:)

FAR.

 
At 7:11 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

How can anyone claim to be "pro-life" when they have a hierarchy of values they assign to human lives? That's not pro-life at all because it doesn't accept the variations in humans. Jesus didn't do that. He hung out with the prostitutes.

 
At 7:40 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

That's a fair question.

I tried to show that people make those value judgements all the time.

Society for murderers and pro-abrotion folks for the unborn.

I was hoping to get people to think by asking the questions I asked.

I love to present ideas for us to ponder.

Would you not make a choice between a little child and Bin Laden and choose the child? If so, then you have made a value judgement based upon the variations in human behavior.

FAR.

 
At 7:59 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

FAR,

I note that asked to give concrete information - names, dates, links, what is otherwise known to us liberals as 'empirical evidence' you cavil and retreat.

Specifically, you said: "Some on the left will agree but will value an old person as less valuable than a young murderer. "

Who on the left? When? Is that person representative of 'the left', an elected official, a respected pundit, something like that?

Provide proof or concede your slanderous point.

 
At 8:11 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

FAR -

These hypotheticals are silly. Everyone, of course, makes value judgments about people, but so what? I choose to hang out with my friends over others in society. So what?

Your post is attempting to reconcile the hypocrisy of being supposedly "pro-life" and pro-death penalty, but it doesn't fly. Especially if you rely upon religion as the basis. Jesus said let he who hath not sin cast the first stone. Since I have sinned, I am not running around throwing stones at other sinners the way the so-called "right" does. The "right" puts value judgments on people, throwing heavy stones, and masquerades that as religion. Contrary to what Jesus taught, the right is pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-torture. Talk about taking the Lord's name in vain.

 
At 1:48 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts,

I am probably guilty of repeating views, which are held by others because of their "secular" worldviews, which in Europe are championed here. There are laws in the world, which are spreading to the U.S. about Euthanasia and "assisted suicide" which again seem to be championed by the Democrats and the left.

Here is a quote from another who is saying what I am postulation:

"There are basically three ways to die which are thought by some to be ethical and in which the government is involved. These are abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty.

Of these three the left generally opposes the death penalty but approves of abortion and euthanasia. The right generally opposes abortion and euthanasia but approves of the death penalty.

So, basically, the left approves of the modes of killing, which will most likely kill the innocent, but opposes the mode, which will most likely kill the guilty.

The reverse is true for the right. They approve of the mode of killing which will most likely kill the guilty, but oppose the modes which will most likely kill the innocent."
See article

I will look for some more specific links. My intention is not to slander, but to post observations of views that I believe are held. See this article

Ii,

Said: “Your post is attempting to reconcile the hypocrisy of being supposedly "pro-life" and pro-death penalty, but it doesn't fly. “

I think the above goes both ways. I think if one is “anti-capital punishment” then they should be “anti-abortion” because the theme is to protect life regardless of the innocence or guilt.

Would you not concede that it seems like hypocrisy on both sides? And you are right I am trying to show the basis for the seeming inconsistency on the right.

I also concede that there seems to be an inconsistency on the right but do not see the same admission on the left. I think by not admitting it they are being disingenuous.


:)

FAR.

 
At 1:59 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts,

Here is a Gallop Poll that suggests that the left champions Euthanisa moreso than the right.

article


I must admit the right (63%) supports it also, but not near as much as liberals (82%).

To quote from the poll: "Weekly churchgoers also support the concept (51%). So do self-described conservatives (63%), though that trails liberals (82%)."

Again I did not state it to be slanderous or to offend. If I did, I appologize.

:)

FAR.

 
At 2:14 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

Said: "the right is pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-torture. "

Well, I am on the right and I am an Isolationist and believe in War only if we are attacked.

Now, we were attacked but the problem is that it was an attack by an ideology and not a country.

If anything we probably should have attacked Saudi Arabia.

And as to torture, that is a very subjective word. The actual meaning of it is "severe physical pain" and turning up and down the thermostat may not be "severe" pain.

I believe in only the degree of torture that I would think proper if I was a prisoner in their jail. The Golden Rule should always be our guide.

:)

FAR.

 
At 2:31 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts,

Here is the link that is broken in my comments Article

Hope this one works.

:)

FAR.

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

FAR,

considering that you started out with an ill-informed attempt to slander liberals, frankly, you shouldn't be manipulating your data again. If you have 63% of reactionaries supporting some form of euthanasia, pointing out that liberals are 'worse' because we support it by an even larger number is really straining the borders of credulity. I'd also note that you still can't give a name to 'some liberals', as I suspected.

I think it's safe to say that a majority of people thinks that personal autonomy extends to dying with dignity, and that the heavy hand of the reactionary values police isn't needed in that personal realm.

:-), StS

 
At 4:55 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts,

It was your idea that I had to give names to those in the Gallop poll and I think that by giving the resuls of the poll shows that my statement of "some on the left" is a valid statement.

Can't you acknowledge that I did not even say "most", let alone "all?"

I posted the poll even though it shocked me that so many conservatives agree with the idea, but I still had to be honest with the posting of the poll even though I knew it would be looked at the way you saw it.

Why do you still presist on calling me a liar about an "attempt to slander liberals" by me, when I said I had no such intent?

Can't you accept my word that I had no such intent, when I say I didn't?

Just because I disagree with you often, does in no way grant me license to call you a liar, why do you then feel that way when I clearly tell you that I had no such motive and even appologized to you if you got that impression?


:)

FAR.

 
At 5:49 PM, Blogger jj said...

FAR I beleive you when you say your intent was not to slander but I also think you are rationalizing.

 
At 7:43 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

jj,

I still believe that a murderer has devalued his life when he takes the life of another.

All life is valuable and sacraed, but not all life is of equal value.

We eat some animals and fowl.

When we kill a snake are we supposed to be punished?

:)

FAR.

 
At 8:47 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

FAR, I'm not calling you a liar. What I am saying is that you made a broad statement about liberals that was derogatory and then failed to back it up with any actual brand-name liberals. There's a lesson here; perhaps you should listen to what we actually say rather than what you think we say, no?

:-), StS

 
At 2:31 AM, Blogger Robert Neddo said...

"...the bible tells us that we will never be tempted beyond our means to withstand the temptations."

Then why do you think people who 'choose' to do evil do so? (Sincere question)

 
At 9:23 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

rwneddo,

All life is about "choice."

When we choose to do anything, it is because we want to do it more than we want to do something else.

Take for instance when I used to smoke. I said often that I wish I could stop, but I wanted to smoke more than I wanted to stop.

"The Devil made me do it" is a ridiculous statement as it assumes that God would punish us for something beyond our control and it assumes that we have no free will. We can be influenced, but ultimately we choose to do good or evil because we want to.

:)

FAR.

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts,

As I said in another comment above..."Here is a Gallop Poll that suggests that the left champions Euthanisa moreso than the right."

I was trying to show the "facts" of a position of "many" on the left and was basing this on the poll that I sited. Just because I don't have access to the names of those on the left that were part of the majority view, does not mean that I am wrong for stating the facts of that majority view.

I am sure you have sited some views of the far-right that are held in general without having access to specific names. Some on the far-right believe in abortion clinic bombings, can you give me names of any of them in the public arena?

FAR.

 
At 10:26 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

rwneddo,

Just to futher clarify with the "why" people "want to."

In my opinion, I think people who do good or evil, choose to do it because of some "fulfillment" expectation(s).

For instance: If someone chooses to committ adultry, it is usually because they want the "feeling" of gratification and/or excitement/rush of the situation.

It may also be to have fulfillment of power, money, ego stroking, etc.

IMHO.

:)

FAR.

 
At 4:52 PM, Blogger Outside the Box said...

Hey! I thought my question had been ignored. I'm glad I checked back.

(Please note, I am not trying to start a debate. Just offering my opinion which happens to differ from yours.)

I've given "free will" a lot of thought over the past few years and I've become quite convinced that it doesn't exist the way most people think it does.

First of all, I think people confuse having "options" and having "a choice".

There are several examples I use for this, but the best one is your belief in Jesus. You have numerous options and yet if I asked you to "choose" another deity to believe in right now, I believe it would be impossible for you to do so. Just as it would be impossible for me to "choose" to believe in one right now. It's not a choice to me if you can't choose more than one thing.

Larry Gelbart said, "One doesn't have a sense of humor. It has you."

I think that's true of about most everything important to a person. It certainly is with me.

Probably the single biggest factor as to why I don't believe in "free will" is my work with children. I'm an English teacher in Taipei and I work with kids ranging from 2 years old to 17. Along with teaching English, I also help parents with their parenting skills. That has really made me aware of the incredible impact that conditioning has on a person. And it starts right from birth.

It all comes down to a "choice"?

I don't think so. The vast majority of people are slaves (sad to say) to their genetics and their up-bringing. The only way to break it, and it can be done, is through self-analysis.

I realize that I'm not going to change your mind in the least bit, nor even give you something to think about, but please do let me know if you think any of this is unfair, illogical, or unreasonable. That's all I ever try for.

Thanks.

 
At 7:59 PM, Blogger Reign of Reason said...

I didn’t' read thru all the comments, but I reject your implicit assumptions.

Aborting a ball of cells isn't murder... Unless, of course, you subscribe to some belief in a mythical, un-measurable life-essence: the soul. I do not and until you show me one the idea of “life beginning at conception” will remain ridiculous.

Empirical data and scientific evidence should be the basis of law: not you, Mohammed’s or anyone else’s view of the great snorkleflugen in the sky…

As for Euthanasia, it's my life and if I decide to end it that is my choice. It shouldn’t be made for me, but if I have made my wishes clear they should be honored. If not, you are again subjecting me to your belief system, which I wholly reject and which no government should attempt to force upon me.

Simply really...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home