How do we teach the value of human life?

[adciv]

Sin was the word I chose, but to kick out sin doesnt invalidate the point.. Children are born into a world that was shapped by thier fathers, mothers, gradfathers, etc.. The state of the world is imprinted upon them, as are the genetic factors that create who they are. So how about we remove sin from the discussion and call it traits. Are you happier with saying that individuals inherit traits from thier fathers that corrupt thier innocence?

And here is where we disagree. I'll admit you can inherit physical traits. However, I do not see them inheriting personality traits or genes that cause evil which is what we are talking about. Further, there is no gene for mass murderer, rapist or a variety of other 'corruptions', meaning that the inheritance would not corrupt them.

And, even having free will does not dictate that we have an influence upon the outcome of how we act. If our action is accepted in one society, we will be alright. However, if that exact same action is taken to be a violation of social mores in another.. Well, that will get us thrown in prison, or flogged..

You seem to be mixing two things here. I do act A that is within societies moores or act !A that is not within societies moores. I choose one or the other. What society chooses to do to me afterwards does not affect my free will in choosing act A or !A. The possible outcomes may affect the decision, but they do no change the fact that one still has a choice.

[logan]

i hope we can still educate college and the high school of some values relating to human life...it's going to be hard but we can always try...these values should be incorporated on the lower graders so that it can be inculcated in their minds as they grow old...

[Deacon]

Please, no more wanton abuse of smilies.

[Arc Orion]

You bastard!

[Blaze]

A pox upon the entire smiley family!

[StruckingFuggle]

To actually go back to the topic at hand with something constructive, I think one way to work towards it it is to have a culture where the dominant atittudes and messages are ones that reinforce human life as something with value, instead of sending out messages left and right that it's not. By which I don't mean the dominant forms of media - music, movies, games, books, that's all fine. It's real people, in the real world. When you support the death penalty, when you say that there's nothing wrong with shoot someone just because they're a criminal, when the answer IS "to kill them until they learn better", when people don't care about their invisible suffering neighbors, for whatever reason, especially when it's no problem of yours or they brought it upon themselves, that callous attitude does a whole damn lot to be the actions in the actions that're louder than words, the contrary message to the sanctity and value of life that you pay lip service to.

It may not even be "one way to work towards it", it might be a necessary component. You want people to learn? Then teach them. Give them a respectful model that values real life to emulate.

[adciv]

Unfortunately, most implementations of what you want make it easier for people to become victims because most implementations criminalize self defense.

No, you can't do anything to the person breaking into your house. Run and hide and wait for the police. Doesn't matter if they don't have to come and help you, we're going to prosecute you if you harm the intruder.

Also, I'd say once someone has already committed murder, they've already proven they haven't learned the value of human life and I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to teach it to them.

P.S. homicide does not always mean murder.

[StruckingFuggle]

I think you missed a good chunk of the point. It's not about defending yourself or not defending yourself, it's about the attitude with which you handle and deal with it. It's a tragedy, not some sort of vindication or something to feel good or feel nothing about. Because life is supposed to have value, eh?

Hm. It's not a tragedy that you did it, but it's a tragedy that it had to be done, or it's at least something to be somber about.

Also, I'd say once someone has already committed murder, they've already proven they haven't learned the value of human life and I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to teach it to them.

Yes, but that, also, wasn't my point. My point was usually, when you kill them, you reinforce the teaching of devalued life.

[StruckingFuggle]

Related to what I was saying, I don't believe that most people here want to teach some sort of value to human life. Y'all seem, rather, to want to teach other people to agree with you that some lives have value under some conditions, and furthermore 'teach' everyone else to agree with you on that and on what those conditions are.

though I guess "these people have lots of value, these people have a little tiny bit of value barely, and these other people, their life has no value" is all value of one sort or another.

[raptor9k]

There is no magic value in a human life. Value is assigned on an individual basis, by individuals. The value I assign to a complete stranger is far lower than the value I assign to my wife. My personal rule is that human life should be spared when possible. I treat everyone with some measure of respect and avoid taking their life (unless they threaten mine), despite a fervent desire to do so in some cases.

One major problem with "teaching the value of human life" (selective value or not) is assuming the person being taught is rational and in their right mind. I doubt this is true for the majority of people that decide to go out in a suicidal rampage.

[Deacon]

Oh, yeah, Fuggle, legal self-defense and the death penalty are the ones undermining people's value of human life.

Y'all seem, rather, to want to teach other people to agree with you that some lives have value under some conditions, and furthermore 'teach' everyone else to agree with you on that and on what those conditions are.

Yes, though your bullshit with the "'teach' everyone else to agree with you" part is not only transparent but mind-screamingly hypocritical. Yes, you fetid turd, you and I and everyone else in the world generally try to convince others that our ideas are the best. You've got to be seriously disturbed in your fucking head if you're really going to try to play it off like you're not doing the same every single time you post.

Raptor's got it right, by the way. Under conditions for the use of self-defense and for the implementation of the death penalty, for instance, two areas you name specifically, an individual has taken actions that necessarily lower the value of their lives in comparison to the rest of humanity in general and their (would-be) victims specifically. You don't disagree, or otherwise you would argue against jail time as well, as stripping people of any one of their basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is devaluing that person's life. The truth is, some lives are worth less than others. Teaching the value of human life is something that reasonable people can understand means that people won't go around blasting away other people indiscriminately.

I hate that I'm even getting sucked into your vortex of fuggleshit again, but I remain tragically optimistic that you'll pull your head out at some point. It's happened once or twice in the past, which only serves to fuel that misguided optimism.

[StruckingFuggle]

...Deacon, of course, misses the point entirely.

There is no magic value in a human life. Value is assigned on an individual basis, by individuals.

So then why should others share or respect your values, or operate life-transactions with consideration for them? Is it because of the obvious simple answer that such people are worthless to you, so you don't care?

One major problem with "teaching the value of human life" (selective value or not) is assuming the person being taught is rational and in their right mind. I doubt this is true for the majority of people that decide to go out in a suicidal rampage.

At the time of the act, probably not. But leading up to it? I don't think that they're like that for their whole life, there's probably a 'changeover' period. Before then you can teach them (if there's something to teach); and even the snap isn't usually like switching a flip but rather a process. Well, in some cases. And even then, barring perhaps some sort of physical mental disorder that made them do it, it's not really something unavoidable, that they would end up in such a position no matter what - for the most part, we could, if people actually tried, do something to prevent people from ending up in that place.

But I believe that most people don't want to admit that, and admission is a large part of getting it done - which is the second hurdle, because people don't want to care about other people outside their monkeysphere who need help ... until after they go too far.

(Though granted, such a culture on a scale the size of our society might be psychologically impossible... Hm.)

[adciv]

Because we make laws so that their life is on the line if they decide to do anything.

And it appears you believe that no one in a completely rational mind can kill another human being. Or that, once irrational, they go back to being rational.

[StruckingFuggle]

Because we make laws so that their life is on the line if they decide to do anything.

Problem with that, among many, is that you don't deal with the actual problem that makes them want to do anything. So you still get people who try to work around those laws, or who think, rationally or irrationally, that losing their life is worth whatever they're going to be doing, and it's still reactive. Unless you intimidate all of them into inaction, you still are left rather pointlessly punishing those who do act after it's too late. And even if people, everyone, still rationally obeys the law, it goes back to undermining arguments of some sort of value of human life and reinforces the notion that you shouldn't care about other people (which would seem to help encourage the bigger acts of not caring about them, up to they as other people matter so little that you can include them for your own ends in your little suicide melodrama), because you not only do nothing for what's actually wrong, but you get people - probably like Deacon there - who see no point or cause to help them.

And it appears you believe that no one in a completely rational mind can kill another human being.

Not quite and not at all. In fact, I believe that sometimes, like in self-defense, killing someone is very rational. What I do believe, though, is that you can teach people who're intellectually capable of being taught, and at some people in time everyone learns the reasons why they don't kill or do kill, whether their rational or 'irrational', and it's a basic fact of humans being humans that although we fail to live up to our potential depressingly often, people are capable of learning new things that change old methods of thought.

Or that, once irrational, they go back to being rational.

It happens plenty of times. You've never, for example, lashed out in anger and done something you wouldn't normally do?

[adciv]

I believe there is a quote, and I'm quite sure you've agreed with this. "You can't legislate morality." Isn't that what you're trying to do here? I'm pretty sure that you can't teach it in the way you are trying to say you want it done. All you can do is make the barrier to it higher than most people want to jump.

It happens plenty of times. You've never, for example, lashed out in anger and done something you wouldn't normally do?

Sure, but I'd still argue I was in my right mind. Or is 'loss of control' something we shouldn't be blamed for?