Great post. One thing I always take into account is that everybody at some stage has had somebody who loved them, be a parent, partner or friend. From that perspective everybody's life is important. Our views are surely developed by the media and our immediate environment?

Does an adult individual who has repeatedly acted irresponsibly have equal value to an adult individual who has repeatedly acted responsibly.

Ah, the market already has a system for this: life insurance! I told the market has all the answers.

I think you're mixing two questions together.

I *care* about my family more than someone I don't know, but that doesn't mean I think they intrinsically have less worth. I've just evolved to care for/about those near me more.

3500 FCFA is the correct answer.

"Does an adult individual who has repeatedly acted irresponsibly have equal value to an adult individual who has repeatedly acted responsibly. "

This is exactly why I hate your ideas, TC. This is it, exactly.

The answer to your question, my friend, is yes. All lives have equal value regardless of any intervening factor.

Now - in terms of actually answering your question: this is how it seems to work in practice:

-People you have never heard of, not even abstractly, are worth nothing at all.
-People you have heard of but never seen are worth almost nothing unless they are grouped into large masses. However even in the millions that matter little. A few people are good enough that they act on behalf of these people, but they are rare and even they are weakly motivated.
-People you have seen but do not know matter only slightly more - more people will act in these cases - seeing strangers being abused for instance, but many even most will still do nothing.
-People you have met but do not know well are within most people's "circle" of people they would do remotely anything for. They are at the periphery though, and your average person wouldn't do much more than give them a few dollars or a few minutes.
-People you know pretty well but are not close friends are the real "people" now. Most people are generally decent towards these people unless shit hits the fan, in which case they are often abandoned.
-True friends and some family you may do quite a lot for - there are people who would abandon their friends if it got deep, but they are fewer than for the preceding categories.
-Usually close friends and family or a love interest are the only ones, if you have anyone, that you will do anything for. Unfortunately though, we *ought* to treat everyone this way. We don't.

We can't, because we don't have the time or resources, but we *should* try. We don't try, as it stands.

Anyway. Out of sight out of mind is what really applies here. What also applies is this: the better you know them, the more your life would be negatively affected by their misfortune, thus, the more likely you are to care about misfortune befalling that person, since we are so selfish.

@Thucy

I disagree.

A murderer is worth less than a firefighter.

"Ask not what your country can do for you..."
You can make your own life valuable by being valuable to others. People who dedicated their lives helping others like firemen naturally get more kudos, but you sort of have to trick yourself into believing in the value of the murderers, convince yourself they're also human and that no one's born a murderer.

Thucy, you are so bitter and hateful today.
I guess the topic of responsibility really gets under your skin.

sorry, but you are trying to determine worth of something priceless. The only reason to attach a price are for comparing and dealing, and both are impossible with humans.

To say that Big Governments statists "try" to help those who need help is the biggest lie ever told.

Creating programs that are fiscally unsustainable and create dependence isn't trying to solve social problems. It makes social problems worse and perpetuates them.

If you want to solve social problems make it painfully plain that an individual is utterly responsible for their actions.

Replacing the family with the state is at the heart of Big Government and it produces unsustainable ideologies characterized by the hopelessly flawed thinking of Thucydides.

I truly feel pity for individuals who share the misguided fantasies of Thucydides who simply can't deal with the realities of human society. What disappointing lives they must live seeing their philosophies continually fail and contradict themselves.

What do you teach your children? (You can't answer this Thucy-you are a kid who hasn't had any)

1-Always take responsibility for your own actions. You can't have any self-respect or respect from others if you don't.
2- Never expect anyone outside the family to be responsible for you.
3-If you want it earn it.
4-Never, ever, ever be a fool or a sucker for a sad story or foolish ideal. You have a brain and the moral compass to decide what help you can give and who deserves it.
5-Judge people by their actions and not their words.

5 is actually great for diplomacy too

I am not interested in a political discussion in this thread with you, TC. Stick to philosophy, and once we have spoken about it we can talk about the role of the state.

So shut the fuck about economics for a sec, k baby?

"A murderer is worth less than a firefighter."

You're wrong. The reason you're wrong is that both of those people are human beings with real experiences and real emotions. Yes, one does more good for society than another, but neither is *worth* more than another. They should not be treated exactly the same, but they should both be afforded the same dignity given to every human *because* they are human.

Things like, not killing them, not torturing them or abusing them, not thinking about their needs and desires before your own, in general not obeying moral imperatives with them.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In this phrase "others" means all other human beings - murderers or otherwise.

Octavious:

1. Why do you ask this question?
2. What do you mean by "worth"? Dollar value, or something else? Without clarification on this point your question is worthless.

I happen to think that human lives are priceless and cannot be valued objectively - any attempt to do so, and to make policy on that basis, leads to horror.

Tettleton's Chew:

I have no problem discussing responsibility - I'm a firm believer in it.

But the kind of responsibility I believe is a responsibility to be an person of integrity - a person who does the right thing.

This would include not devaluing human fucking beings as if they are so much biomass. Whether they are rapists, druggies, CEOs, priests, Nelson Mandela, Tettleton's Chew, or even myself.

"Without clarification on this point your question is worthless."

What do you mean by "worthless"? Without clarification on this point your question is worthless. lol

I judge human beings based on their actions.
Is there any other way to judge the value of human beings besides their actions Thucy?
I trust my ability to judge the irresponsibility or responsibility of another human beings actions.
Who knows where you get the notion that judging human beings by the actions is devauling them as fucking biomass.
Your young, inexperienced, and not that intelligent I'm beginning to learn.
At least you write well. To bad you don't display much intelligence outside the use of language.

So in Thucy's world he divides up finite natural resources and the productive output of society based on each individual's "fucking biomass."
I guess we won't find Thucy in charge of anything of consequence in the near future.

@Thucy

"they should both be afforded the same dignity given to every human *because* they are human."

Why?

"not devaluing human fucking beings" - But obvioulsy calling them "human fucking beings" doesn't devaslue them... LOL! Sorry, that just popped out at me, Thucy.

On the point of devaluing life or not, I believe there are certain people who confess to violent and outrageous acts who devalue themselves through these acts, which is why I have no problem with the death penalty provided it is clear the person did the crime. The recent example of Troy Davis is a bad one in that it wasn't clear and he should have had his sentence commuted to life. But someone like Jeffrey Dahlmer forfeits his life when he brutally and without *any* cause takes another life.

It's one thing to come home and find your wifre in bed with another man and blow them both away. If you can't get a temporary insanity plea or even not guilty by reason of insanity, you shouldn't ever get more than life in prison for those acts. Even if you kill someone in a robbery, life is acceptable. But mass-murderers who kidnap strangers with the sole intent of torturing and killing them have no value in my view and deserve to die.

"So in Thucy's world he divides up finite natural resources and the productive output of society based on each individual's "fucking biomass."

You misunderstand me, my point is that you should not, and really cannot, successfully decide how to value a human being. If you begin to you dehumanize people almost automatically.

And the reason, abgemacht, why, is because as human beings we are one species.

Going on the principle of putting yourself in someone else's shoes - you shouldn't devalue a person because you yourself would not want to be devalued if you were them. Life happens. People do things. People do horrible and great things, but we are all still people. And if we are going to live rightly and be as humane as we can, we should remember that.

Have you seen Dead Man Walking? It illustrates what I'm trying to say through emotion much better than I can express on an internet forum.

Same to you about Dead Man Walking, Draug.

"I trust my ability to judge the irresponsibility or responsibility of another human beings actions."

TC, this is why you are a scary, scary person. You are just not as good at is as you think you are, and no one is. The idea that you think you know whether one person is better or more worthy than another is a bit terrifying. Not just because it's YOU, TC, but because it's anyone. No one is in a position where they can fairly judge who is better or more worthy than another person.

Do people on this forum not believe in universal human rights? Maybe I've been a little too over-optimistic of late. I kind of thought that was a done deal.

Also, with regard to division of natural resources:

The primary objective should be to meet everyone's physical needs. We can do that with what we have. After that, it's open to debate, that's not really what this thread is about in my opinion though. Remember that I have said I don't think everyone ought to be treated THE SAME.

I do think everyone is equal in WORTH, but we should not be treated the same. We SHOULD, however, all receive a minimum of dignity and respect. Human rights, basically.

I've seen Dead Man Walking, Thucy. that's why I would reserve the use of the death penalty for those who are clearly beyond redemption and have shown complete contempt for human life out the window. Murders happen. But not all murderers are equal. Mass murderers whose only go is to terrorize and kill total strangers deserve death. Desperate folks who happen to kill someone in the commision of a crime or who snap under pressure do *not* deserve death.

But it's stupid to say that the moment we start devaluing one human life, we devalue all of it. In reality, the moment we devalue one human life that has itself decided to randomly devalue other's lives for their own pleasure is the moment we reaffirm the value of human life as a whole.

Punishment is the best deterrent. If a mass murderer knows the worst he can get is life in prison without parole, he'll continue to kill until he is caught. And if someone on the edge in prison already for life with no chance of parole decides he wants to kill, he can do so with impunity. What? Does he have multiple lives to serve out life sentences? No? Then he is already getting the worst punishment so there is no reason for him to try and behave.

^draugnar, studies clearly show there is no deterrent effect related to capital punishment.

when i get back to america i can show them to you - remind me. i am not making it up i want to say that emphatically. lol. translations - crazy murderers will murder no matter what. and people cornered into killing also kill no matter what. punishment is not, actually, the best deterrent. the last thing about capital punishment - life in prison is LIKE an execution in that the person is forever removed from society. but, it's cheaper than an execution, and, if found innocent, they can at least be released and some tattered notion of justice is preserved. you kill a guy, and he's dead forever.

I agree with almost everything Thucy has said, except for his implicit rejection of the death penalty (which doesn't matter, since it's not really on-topic in the first place), and of course the basis he cites, which I think is insufficient for the high principles he espouses. (That said, I'm glad he espouses them, and not the dreadful principles espoused by others in the thread).

As for the why, I (being a Christian) would cite that all humans are carriers equally of the Imago Dei. Some may live it out less, and others more, but they all live it out some and rebel against it some, and _from the point of view of humans_, it is the nature, and not the actions, that should be seen as defining worth.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, brother.

You should never kill anyone, for any reason, except in self-defense. Ending of human lives is wrong, period.

Interesting view semck. I also find it interesting that this is where I find common ground with non-asshole-Christians.

I'd like to see these studies and their details. Most of the Dahlmer types end up in solitary and invalidate the study results. When prevented from committing the crime through segregation, that cannot count as not being a repeat offender. The only true study would require some barbaric and inhumane act like populating two prisons with murderers in the general populace and telling one of them that tghe worst they can get is what they already have and the other that if they kill again they get the chair. Those studies don't have controls in place and are prone to influence of their data through the aforementioned segregation along with the fact that those who would be potential repeat offenders in prison's where the death penalty is in place are already on death row, not receiving life sentences.