Are all lives equal in value?

[relm1]

Forgive my rambling.  I was thinking of posting this in the British Composers thread but realized it has very little to do with British composers. 

George Butterworth was part of the "Lost Generation" of poets, artists, scientists, composers whose life was prematurely ended during World War 1.  It's hard to quantify the impact of this loss.  I believe Vaughan Williams thought very highly of Butterworth, perhaps considering him the superior composer though his reputation is based on just a few years of music.  Had he lived, would we have had a second Vaughan Williams?  Or perhaps, there wouldn't really be a Vaughan Williams because Butterworth would have been the famous English composer of that time? 

Artists with a significant impact to heritage can be exempt from military service.  Part of me thinks that actually makes war less terrible if only ordinary people were at risk of being killed but anyone of significant merit would be safe.  Shouldn't the whole point be that war is a horrible thing BECAUSE it can take away so much promise and potential from anyone engaged in it? 

So put another way, let's say there is an existential threat facing humanity like a planet will hit earth in one year destroying our world.  We'll put all resources in to building an Ark to reach a newly discovered second earth with 1,000 people to rebuild humanity (yes, I'm using the scenario from "When Worlds Collide").  That would mean out of 1,000 people, 13% would be illiterate if we concluded all lives have equal value.  I would imagine artists, scientists, inventors, creators would probably be disproportionately represented.  As if having cultural or heritage impact increased the value of your life. 

Doesn't that mean not all lives are of equal value?  Some lives are of higher value than others?  Isn't that reflected in our laws too?  Simple example is that you can legally be exempted from combat if you're a significant scientist, writer, or composer but probably not if you were a significant plumber or farmer.  How is value on a life determined?  This is sort of a similar question to the thought experiment about two people are drowning, one an older man who achieved major breakthroughs in medicine and the other, a two year old child who has promise and potential but hasn't accomplished anything.  You can only save one, who would you save - the one who has had a long, successful life already but probably won't discover anything else or the one who has their whole life ahead but might not accomplish anything? 

So, tying this back to George Butterworth, should he have been exempted from World War 1 because of his potential impact? Isn't this basically a modern version of feudal laws where rights were established to protect the interests of the nobility and those without nobility, had very limited rights?  Isn't that similar to the Jim Crow laws in the United States that granted more rights based on the color of your skin arguing that entitled you to special status that would be denied to those who weren't white? 

[DavidW]

I would imagine artists, scientists, inventors, creators would probably be disproportionately represented.  As if having cultural or heritage impact increased the value of your life. 

None of those people can grow crops or know anything about animal husbandry. Welcome to a colony that would immediately perish.

Your argument was long enough to contradict the thesis. Value, as you've defined it, is highly dependent on context.

But even if that were not the case, I would still disagree. Even people who accomplish nothing great still have value to the people they touch. Who are any of us to presume to judge the quality of a person?

[Karl Henning]

Who are any of us to presume to judge the quality of a person?

There's that. even months before my own situation. working with Barbara (who ministers to the homeless in Salem and environs) opened my eyes to how casually and snobbishly I was denigrating the homeless.

[Henk]

There's that. even months before my own situation. working with Barbara (who ministers to the homeless in Salem and environs) opened my eyes to how casually and snobbishly I was denigrating the homeless.

You're homeless? Didn't get the part 'even months before my own situation' right I guess. 

[Karl Henning]

You're homeless?

Not as yet, but I am facing eviction. The process will take a while, and I hope to find a situation before I must vacate the property.

[Henk]

Not as yet, but I am facing eviction. The process will take a while, and I hope to find a situation before I must vacate the property.

Good luck. 🙏

[Karl Henning]

Thanks!

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

How about a great artist who is a radical white supremacist? How about an excellent scientist who has murdered other people? How about a great politician who contributes to the world peace but takes bribery from the people in her country? There are many and diverse values, such as aesthetic realization, scientific progress, social justice, academic knowledge, protection of humanity, economic growth, etc.. These values are incomparable, immeasurable and often conflictual.  These values are depending upon your ideology, aesthetic, etc..
       In the real world, however, judicial courts and corporations sometimes calculate the values of lives. Some times they do it based on individuals' wages. Also they do it based on "compensating differentials"- peoples' willingness to accept a risk of death in exchange for monetary compensation. Thus, their calculation of lives are based on a utilitarian approach. Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment exemplifies a utilitarian approach.  He thought that the life of the unscrupulous pawnbroker had no values and mudering her wouldn't be a crime in a super-legal term. Killing the old lady would only stop her exploitative behavior and Raskolnikov would use her money to help him acquire a social position to improve social conditions and justices.
     As for the utilitarian approach, I also want to mention the so-called Trolley dilemma. Imagine that In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won't be able to move out of the way in time. As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers. However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues. So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five? Harry Truman said that by dropping atomic bombs and killing hundreds of thousands of people in Japan, he prevented a full-scale combat in Japan and saved millions of lives.

[Mandryka]

So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?

 All other things being equal pulling the leaver is clearly the right thing to do. There's no dilemma.

[Mandryka]

Doesn't that mean not all lives are of equal value? 

In ordinary moral thinking not all lives are of equal value. Animal lives have a very low value for example. One way into the question you pose is to explore whether there is a morally relevant difference between human and animal lives. 

We could also think about whether there can be a moral justification for the genocide in Gaza - presumably the perpetrators and their supporters believe for some reason that innocent Palestinian lives don't matter so much - like the lives of vermin.

[SimonNZ]

None of those people can grow crops or know anything about animal husbandry. Welcome to a colony that would immediately perish.

"Atlas Shrugged: One Hour Later":

https://angryflower.com/348.html

"Don't servants create lunch?"

[AnotherSpin]

It seems to me that the rigid separation of lives and the establishment of their hierarchy according to the criterion of value is erroneous. There are no lives, there is one life. What our individual mind qualifies as our individual life boxed in time and space is conditional and for the most part erroneous. The separation is purely imaginary.

Any thousand people will do for the restoration of humanity, the more random the better.

[relm1]

None of those people can grow crops or know anything about animal husbandry. Welcome to a colony that would immediately perish.

Your argument was long enough to contradict the thesis. Value, as you've defined it, is highly dependent on context.

But even if that were not the case, I would still disagree. Even people who accomplish nothing great still have value to the people they touch. Who are any of us to presume to judge the quality of a person?

Yes, in the fictional scenario, I would assume the bulk of the 1,000 slots are for pragmatic purposes such as farmers, plumbers, electricians, etc.  But I would think some roles like artists, scientists, composers, etc., would probably be overvalued statistically.  But that goes back to the main point that it wouldn't be "all lives share equal value" but some are more valuable than others. 

[relm1]

How about a great artist who is a radical white supremacist? How about an excellent scientist who has murdered other people? How about a great politician who contributes to the world peace but takes bribery from the people in her country? There are many and diverse values, such as aesthetic realization, scientific progress, social justice, academic knowledge, protection of humanity, economic growth, etc.. These values are incomparable, immeasurable and often conflictual.  These values are depending upon your ideology, aesthetic, etc..
       In the real world, however, judicial courts and corporations sometimes calculate the values of lives. Some times they do it based on individuals' wages. Also they do it based on "compensating differentials"- peoples' willingness to accept a risk of death in exchange for monetary compensation. Thus, their calculation of lives are based on a utilitarian approach. Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment exemplifies a utilitarian approach.  He thought that the life of the unscrupulous pawnbroker had no values and mudering her wouldn't be a crime in a super-legal term. Killing the old lady would only stop her exploitative behavior and Raskolnikov would use her money to help him acquire a social position to improve social conditions and justices.
     As for the utilitarian approach, I also want to mention the so-called Trolley dilemma. Imagine that In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won't be able to move out of the way in time. As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers. However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues. So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five? Harry Truman said that by dropping atomic bombs and killing hundreds of thousands of people in Japan, he prevented a full-scale combat in Japan and saved millions of lives.

Oooh, I love the complexity you through in.  Similarly, how about the nobody who is honorable, compassionate, talented, and kind but no one knows who they are?  Yes, the thought experiment about saving an old drownee or young one is a variation of the trolley thought experiment. 

I love the complexity you added to the scenario but are you saying you don't think Butterworth should be excluded from war service because of cultural and national heritage/significance or no one should be granted special treatment? 

[relm1]

It seems to me that the rigid separation of lives and the establishment of their hierarchy according to the criterion of value is erroneous. There are no lives, there is one life. What our individual mind qualifies as our individual life boxed in time and space is conditional and for the most part erroneous. The separation is purely imaginary.

Any thousand people will do for the restoration of humanity, the more random the better.

I don't know.  I think there would be something like 500 spots are purely random but the other 500 are completely selected.  The people most likely to ensure survival of the species, doctors, nurses, engineers, farmers, plumbers, construction workers, probably a few people to maintain government, law, and order.  Then the rest would be random.  If everyone were random and "the more random the better" wouldn't bode well for survival. 

[Brian]

Another angle to the question here is that we appear to be weighing/measuring the value of lives after their potential utility has been set. So much depends on the environment in which we are raised, our parents, our teachers, etc. In other words, if you had to save humanity with 1,000 people, but all 1,000 of them had to be children, the philosophical implication for the value question would be so much different.

P.S. Sending my best to Karl. I hope you have the aid of an eviction advocacy center and resources in the Boston area.

[Florestan]

I am facing eviction. The process will take a while, and I hope to find a situation before I must vacate the property.

My God, Karl, this is terrifying news. My thoughts and prayers are with you. Wishing you all the best.

Sending my best to Karl. I hope you have the aid of an eviction advocacy center and resources in the Boston area.

Actually, yes --- in a civilized society there should be legal recourse against eviction in cases such like Karl's, shouldn't it?

[Florestan]

if you had to save humanity with 1,000 people, but all 1,000 of them had to be children, the philosophical implication for the value question would be so much different.

Excellently put.

[San Antone]

Yes, in the fictional scenario, I would assume the bulk of the 1,000 slots are for pragmatic purposes such as farmers, plumbers, electricians, etc.  But I would think some roles like artists, scientists, composers, etc., would probably be overvalued statistically.  But that goes back to the main point that it wouldn't be "all lives share equal value" but some are more valuable than others. 

I premise I reject utterly. 

Any group of 1,000 people will be able to adapt, supplement, or learn, the necessary skills required to survive.  Also, among any group of 1,000 there will be those with adequate talent for art, music, literature, design, construction, legal, medical, etc., to provide some kind of entertainment for the community as well as necessary signage, laws, and other societal needs.

What usually happens is everyone does something and contributes what they can for the benefit of the group. A group need not have experts or the most talented of any field to survive and prosper. In fact, experts and other similarly "talented" people are often the least able to sacrifice for a group's needs, being too ego-driven or in general difficult personalities.

The idea that some lives/people are more valuable is how eugenics began.

[Florestan]

no one should be granted special treatment

This.

I abhor, detest and reject any kind of elitism.

Butterworth's gift for music made him no more humanly valuable than millions of other human beings with no gift for music whatsoever who died in WWI. Who can rule, and what criteria, that his life was more valuable than that of a humble blacksmith or plumber or shoemaker who had a family to feed and children to raise? They all died absurdly in a war which was not of their own making --- and this is valid also for Germans and Austrians and whatever nation took part in WWI, Romanians included.