It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the value of human life?

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   
First of all, I've put this in the NWO category because I believe in the event of a NWO, we would see the value of life (and how we evaluate it) adjusted drastically.

We always talk about the value of human life. We humans are quite accustomed to placing price tags on things. It just comes naturally. It makes sense to us. "This candybar is worth $0.99." Got it.

However, when we talk about the value of human life, we don't really seem to have a definition of what that means. Let's consider the following thought experiment:

A crazed gunman has captured three people. One of them is a Nobel prize winning scientist in the field of cancer research. The second is a career criminal with a long list of convictions and a looming prison sentence. The third is a 7 year old boy who still has his whole life ahead of him. You can only save one of them. If you fail to choose, all three will die. Which one do you pick?

First of all, how do you even begin to answer a question like this? Second, do you have enough information to make an informed decision or are you relying on prejudice and pre-conceived notions? Third, even if you knew EVERYTHING about each of these people, would you ever have enough information to make an informed decision?

How do you evaluate the worth of a human being? If we truly believe that every life is precious - which I don't believe we do - then we must concede that the convicted criminal should be just as worthy of saving as the scientist.

And as a final point, by making a choice from the list above - no matter which choice you make - we can further extrapolate that the two who are NOT chosen are condemned to death. Thus we are (by proxy) making the statement that it is sometimes okay to allow humans to die, so long as others are allowed to live.

Please discuss.

Lastly, I humbly request that the mods moderate with extreme prejudice any posts containing political parties or the names of political pundits. This discussion has no place for these things. The thread drift/baiting is currently out of control and I'd like to NOT see that happen in this thread.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   
"Lastly, I humbly request that the mods moderate with extreme prejudice any posts containing political parties or the names of political pundits. This discussion has no place for these things. The thread drift/baiting is currently out of control and I'd like to NOT see that happen in this thread."
I would like to ask what makes you so much more important than everyone else who writes a post.

edit on 6-7-2016 by imod02 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSensible

All life has value and we should if truly ethical regard all other people with an empathy seeing ourselves in there place.

To weigh the value of these three lives is not truly ethical but if I take it from my own choice I would value the child above the other two since he has his whole life ahead and still believe in the woman and children first mentality.
Second I Would have to struggle to think on that, why is the career criminal such a person and was he a victim, has he murdered people and how old is the nobel laureat and how much can he still give, has his personal life saved live's and does that count to place him second behind the child.

Regardless I would place it like this, child first, scientist second (he may still be saving lives) and criminal third.

If I was the captain of the ship that was sinking then I would be fourth even if there were only three place's in the life boat.

As for the gunman scenario, if I had to choose it would be the child obviously since I would ASSUME the scientist would be likewise inclined, If the scenario was a little different and I had to choose one to die or all three would die and there was no choice then god forgive I would have to choose the criminal since the scientist may still save lives even if he is an old man and the child once again is a total innocent.

Best of all world's I would have a fully drilled SAS squad with there mp5's raid the site and shoot the gunman through his medulla oblongata before he could pull the trigger, that is how they saved the lives in the Iranian embassy siege in london with the help of a few flash bang's.


As for the title of the thread, A human life has infinite or it is at least to those that have any empathy at all.

edit on 6-7-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: imod02




I would like to ask what makes you so much more important than everyone else who writes a post.
Sorry but your question has nothing to do about "The Value Of Life" your OP.....



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: tommo39
a reply to: imod02




I would like to ask what makes you so much more important than everyone else who writes a post.
Sorry but your question has nothing to do about "The Value Of Life" your OP.....

It has to do with values,is one person better than another, but I think you lost the point



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   
It varies depending on who controls it,there is no absolute.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSensible

You shouldn't overthink something like this.....it's gets in the way of making a decision.

The 7 year old lives. He's still innocent. You don't kill innocence.

You place value on a human life by seeing what they bring to the table. By what they add, or don't add, to the society in which they live. In the case of a 7 year old, you have to make a judgement on what the parents brought so you can better gauge what the 7 year old is capable of. Or not. If the odds are stacked against the 7 year old in being valuable to society, you nurture him, through society, to learn to be a contributing factor. Give him a sense of hope where there may not have been one before. You have to give innocence a chance.

What do you do with the people who have little or no worth to society? You get them out of that society so it can be as strong as possible. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and make sure to show your 7 year old's that. Place them in their own society so they can be unproductive together. Don't let them be a burden on others who live drastically different lives. That makes no sense. It makes life more complicated than it has to be, because once you reach a certain age with your habits, intelligence and capabilities.......you're not going to change. And no amount of integration into other societies or peoples to maybe change your qualities so you can maybe adapt to the more productive ones isn't going to do any good.

It's like trying to teach a pig how to sing. Your time is being wasted because a pig is never going to sing, and you're only going to annoy the pig who knew that all along



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSensible
Logically speaking, if the police know that hostages are going to be killed regardless, they will eliminate the shooter at all costs.

Even in a theoretical impossible scenario, it fully depends on who the people actually are. Perhaps the scientist stole research and portrayed it as his own; perhaps the career criminal stole evidence proving government corruption; perhaps the child is a sociopathic arsonist. Or maybe the scientist is the child's parent, and if we saved the scientist, they become depressed at the loss of their child and work towards plaguing humanity.

Theoreticals aside, I suspect most individuals would save the child purely out of social contention. They know how it would look if they let a child die. Humans tend to put much value in potentiality, despite its indefinite nature.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSensible

The "value of life" has different importance and meaning to different classes of people in the world. Lets say the poorer of Africa maybe are only concerned where the food on the table for the family will come from tomorrow, "high value to survive" maybe is a consideration. Then there are people in war and conflict, maybe their priority for "value of life" is to survive the bombs and guns on a daily basis, a higher value for sure. Then there are the people who believe in their religion, have no major hardships or concerns, comfortable in life with money in their pockets. They maybe are the group who don't have "high values of life", due to their busy lifestyle, status, living for today attitude, and knowing in the end they will end up in "heaven". maybe yes and maybe no......



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: tommo39

Yes, but the question is how do YOU value human life? Specifically, the lives of others around you.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DeepImpactX

I wonder, would it change your decision if I told you the following facts:

1. The Scientist is on the verge of a cure for brain cancer.
2. The child has severe mental retardation.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 6-7-2016 by MrSensible because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSensible




You can only save one of them. If you fail to choose, all three will die. Which one do you pick?


Paper, scissors and stones.

i think we need resect the worth of all living things not just humans.
life is life, it dont make a difference if your 7years old, or a brain surgeon. These are titles us humans made up, its an idea. Life is very real. each life should be treated the same human or not. That is the will to live and thrive.

the brain surgeon at this time might be a better idea as he can potential save lives, but the 7 year old might grow up and cure cancer for the world. So if we keep a simple mind and say is life then we cant jduge as to who has the right to live.
edit on WednesdaythkWed, 06 Jul 2016 06:03:24 -0500America/Chicago3Wednesday2016201624 by lSkrewloosel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSensible

Easy question . . .

The child is the one to save simply because the other two are adults.

Why? Human life is not of equal value.

We do not include the child in the decision because we, as adults, are supposed to protect children and shield them from traumatic experiences.

Ask the two adults which life to save and they will probably choose for the child to live.

Therefore, it does not make any difference what the adults do or are.

Women and children first.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
The value of the human life is subjective. We are animals that will first value ourselves above everyone, then family members, then friends, then mothers and children and then everyone else. (There might be some wiggle room here and there I am just stating my point) , so in this case I would pick the scientist, he has already won a nobel prize for his work and done enough, wouldnt save the criminal so it leaves only the child.




top topics



 
6

log in

join