How much does our society and culture truly value human life?

[Stevicus]

I've been thinking about this issue, as it seems to underlie multiple issues which are commonly discussed - from gun control, COVID, abortion, and many other issues.

The central assumption seems to be that we care about the value of human life, so anything that could save lives is considered a good thing. I think most decent human beings agree with this, and I can't find any fault with the principle itself.

But do people really, truly believe that, or is it something more of an abstraction? Obviously, it's normal and natural for people to care about the lives of people close to them - friends, family, co-workers, and even online acquaintances.

Or sometimes it might be extended to one's own countrymen. One might hear of a plane crash from overseas where they might say "300 people killed, including 2 Americans." When hearing stuff like that, some Americans might think "Oh no! Americans were killed!" without really considering the other 298 people onboard.

Sometimes, the issue of the value of human life might come up in a gun debate. Someone might bring up the fact that many people die in traffic accidents, which would insinuate that people may not care as much about human life which is lost, when it's under different circumstances that wouldn't necessarily fall into a specific topic.

Along the same lines, many arguments seem to be rooted in statistical analyses, in which human life seems reduced to a number, even if it may be compelling data.

And then I consider how many people are often just discarded and forgotten, for whatever reason. The homeless, the helpless, the mentally ill, the poverty-stricken, the oppressed - a lot of suffering out there, yet finding people to care about them is like searching for water in the desert.

There are also those who have a mindset which might be influenced from a military point of view, where they might view human deaths as "casualties of war" or "collateral damage." It's not that they don't care about the loss of human life (although some probably don't), but they may see it more in terms of a sacrifice they're willing to make for some higher cause.

So, my questions on this are:

- Is it automatically a given that people should care about all human lives everywhere, and we should be sad about the loss of life regardless of the circumstances?
- Or do we only care about some lives more than others - either our close friends, family, etc.?
- Do we care more about the lives of our countrymen more than those in other countries?
- Or is it more a question of circumstances of how people die? If they die in a mass shooting, is that worse than if they died in a traffic accident?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've been thinking about this issue, as it seems to underlie multiple issues which are commonly discussed - from gun control, COVID, abortion, and many other issues.

The central assumption seems to be that we care about the value of human life, so anything that could save lives is considered a good thing. I think most decent human beings agree with this, and I can't find any fault with the principle itself.

But do people really, truly believe that, or is it something more of an abstraction? Obviously, it's normal and natural for people to care about the lives of people close to them - friends, family, co-workers, and even online acquaintances.

Or sometimes it might be extended to one's own countrymen. One might hear of a plane crash from overseas where they might say "300 people killed, including 2 Americans." When hearing stuff like that, some Americans might think "Oh no! Americans were killed!" without really considering the other 298 people onboard.

Sometimes, the issue of the value of human life might come up in a gun debate. Someone might bring up the fact that many people die in traffic accidents, which would insinuate that people may not care as much about human life which is lost, when it's under different circumstances that wouldn't necessarily fall into a specific topic.

Along the same lines, many arguments seem to be rooted in statistical analyses, in which human life seems reduced to a number, even if it may be compelling data.

And then I consider how many people are often just discarded and forgotten, for whatever reason. The homeless, the helpless, the mentally ill, the poverty-stricken, the oppressed - a lot of suffering out there, yet finding people to care about them is like searching for water in the desert.

There are also those who have a mindset which might be influenced from a military point of view, where they might view human deaths as "casualties of war" or "collateral damage." It's not that they don't care about the loss of human life (although some probably don't), but they may see it more in terms of a sacrifice they're willing to make for some higher cause.

So, my questions on this are:

- Is it automatically a given that people should care about all human lives everywhere, and we should be sad about the loss of life regardless of the circumstances?
- Or do we only care about some lives more than others - either our close friends, family, etc.?
- Do we care more about the lives of our countrymen more than those in other countries?
- Or is it more a question of circumstances of how people die? If they die in a mass shooting, is that worse than if they died in a traffic accident?

It is sociology and psychology. We are biologically capable of holding around max 200 humans as personal relationships. The rest of humanity is a function of learned norms depending on culture.

 

[Estro Felino]

I guess that empathy is what makes us humane. And human.
Yesterday night, before falling asleep I watched Titanic, a 2012 TV miniserie . It was so realistic. I cried so much at the end. It deals with people who died 110 years ago, yet I cried thinking of what all they went through.
I also prayed for them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess that empathy is what makes us humane. And human.
Yesterday night, before falling asleep I watched Titanic, a 2012 TV miniserie . It was so realistic. I cried so much at the end. It deals with people who died 110 years ago, yet I cried thinking of what all they went through.
I also prayed for them.

Even empathy has a limit. Ask @Augustus for a reference.

 

[sun rise]

- Is it automatically a given that people should care about all human lives everywhere, and we should be sad about the loss of life regardless of the circumstances?

It's a given for me but obviously not for everyone. And it's not new. As John Donne put it over 400 years ago: No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

 

[Mock Turtle]

I suspect (for most) there is a logarithmic scale, starting off at 100% for those we love and value, and tailing off as they get more distant socially until it becomes quite a small value, and often related to distance too. Much as Paul Bloom proposed in his book Against Empathy.

 

[Bathos Logos]

- Is it automatically a given that people should care about all human lives everywhere, and we should be sad about the loss of life regardless of the circumstances?

For my own purposes, and just being 100% honest, I would say I tend to value the life of children more than I do adults. I think it has to do with the ideas that an adult can die of any number of things that can almost be expected to occur in fairly large number. Things like disease, dangerous situations they get themselves into or put themselves in, people taking advantage of, or angering others to the point that there is a deadly eruption. This is not me saying that any of those things are good - they are just things that one comes to understand are to be expected as input/output of adult human beings. We adults tend to be turds, in other words, and so we often times bring death to our doorstep, after a fashion. Children are different in this respect. They are more apt to come out of disease and with their whole life ahead of them and so it seems more unfair when they don't, are usually only found entering dangerous situations if adults have put them there or adults are the literal danger in the situations, or if they are too innocent to understand the danger in the first place (an excuse most adults simply do not have), and children don't tend to have enough years under their belts to even have developed a disposition that takes advantage or purposefully hurts other people for personal gain. These are generalizations, surely - but that's because, generally, these things can be found to be truer among kids/adults as respectively applicable.

Ultimately what I am getting at is that the premium isn't exactly placed on "life" as a general statement. Do I hope that people keep their fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers, even if they are adults? Of course. But do I react just as strongly to the news of an adult dying as I do to a child? No. The adult more or less had their day in the sun. They had their shot, and perhaps they had a hand in blowing it. Much more likely than the child whose death comes about via any particular circumstance. And so there may certainly be differences to how much we value certain lives - and I don't know that there is a "wrong" or "right" to be found there. Others may feel differently, obviously, but this is what I find in my own reactions to various deaths one hears about. And again, I am just being honest.

I also do tend to feel more for unexpectred/unnecessary loss of life versus anyone who "went looking for it" in some way. For example, I feel very strongly for any victims of these ridiculous shootings that keep happening all around the U.S., but I feel almost nothing for the person who dies trying to climb Mount Everest.

 

[Heyo]

I've been thinking about this issue, as it seems to underlie multiple issues which are commonly discussed - from gun control, COVID, abortion, and many other issues.

The central assumption seems to be that we care about the value of human life, so anything that could save lives is considered a good thing. I think most decent human beings agree with this, and I can't find any fault with the principle itself.

But do people really, truly believe that, or is it something more of an abstraction? Obviously, it's normal and natural for people to care about the lives of people close to them - friends, family, co-workers, and even online acquaintances.

Or sometimes it might be extended to one's own countrymen. One might hear of a plane crash from overseas where they might say "300 people killed, including 2 Americans." When hearing stuff like that, some Americans might think "Oh no! Americans were killed!" without really considering the other 298 people onboard.

Sometimes, the issue of the value of human life might come up in a gun debate. Someone might bring up the fact that many people die in traffic accidents, which would insinuate that people may not care as much about human life which is lost, when it's under different circumstances that wouldn't necessarily fall into a specific topic.

Along the same lines, many arguments seem to be rooted in statistical analyses, in which human life seems reduced to a number, even if it may be compelling data.

And then I consider how many people are often just discarded and forgotten, for whatever reason. The homeless, the helpless, the mentally ill, the poverty-stricken, the oppressed - a lot of suffering out there, yet finding people to care about them is like searching for water in the desert.

There are also those who have a mindset which might be influenced from a military point of view, where they might view human deaths as "casualties of war" or "collateral damage." It's not that they don't care about the loss of human life (although some probably don't), but they may see it more in terms of a sacrifice they're willing to make for some higher cause.

So, my questions on this are:

- Is it automatically a given that people should care about all human lives everywhere, and we should be sad about the loss of life regardless of the circumstances?
- Or do we only care about some lives more than others - either our close friends, family, etc.?
- Do we care more about the lives of our countrymen more than those in other countries?
- Or is it more a question of circumstances of how people die? If they die in a mass shooting, is that worse than if they died in a traffic accident?

All people die eventually. It's fact of life, something to accept because we can't change it.
It's not the death of a person but the circumstances. When the death is due to malice, stupidity or indifference of other people, it makes me angry or sad. Those are the things we could have changed but didn't.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I've been thinking about this issue, as it seems to underlie multiple issues which are commonly discussed - from gun control, COVID, abortion, and many other issues.

The central assumption seems to be that we care about the value of human life, so anything that could save lives is considered a good thing. I think most decent human beings agree with this, and I can't find any fault with the principle itself.

But do people really, truly believe that, or is it something more of an abstraction? Obviously, it's normal and natural for people to care about the lives of people close to them - friends, family, co-workers, and even online acquaintances.

Or sometimes it might be extended to one's own countrymen. One might hear of a plane crash from overseas where they might say "300 people killed, including 2 Americans." When hearing stuff like that, some Americans might think "Oh no! Americans were killed!" without really considering the other 298 people onboard.

Sometimes, the issue of the value of human life might come up in a gun debate. Someone might bring up the fact that many people die in traffic accidents, which would insinuate that people may not care as much about human life which is lost, when it's under different circumstances that wouldn't necessarily fall into a specific topic.

Along the same lines, many arguments seem to be rooted in statistical analyses, in which human life seems reduced to a number, even if it may be compelling data.

And then I consider how many people are often just discarded and forgotten, for whatever reason. The homeless, the helpless, the mentally ill, the poverty-stricken, the oppressed - a lot of suffering out there, yet finding people to care about them is like searching for water in the desert.

There are also those who have a mindset which might be influenced from a military point of view, where they might view human deaths as "casualties of war" or "collateral damage." It's not that they don't care about the loss of human life (although some probably don't), but they may see it more in terms of a sacrifice they're willing to make for some higher cause.

So, my questions on this are:

- Is it automatically a given that people should care about all human lives everywhere, and we should be sad about the loss of life regardless of the circumstances?
- Or do we only care about some lives more than others - either our close friends, family, etc.?
- Do we care more about the lives of our countrymen more than those in other countries?
- Or is it more a question of circumstances of how people die? If they die in a mass shooting, is that worse than if they died in a traffic accident?

Our society and culture seems to value profit at any cost, over people, animals, the environment, etc, and that's wrong. Our recent society seems to value a conservative religious view, and merging it with government is wrong. We are not very community minded. We do so many things right, but so many things wrong.

 

[pearl]

But do people really, truly believe that, or is it something more of an abstraction? Obviously, it's normal and natural for people to care about the lives of people close to them - friends, family, co-workers, and even online acquaintances.

In many ways we have become a 'throw away' society, whether the unborn or the elderly, the homeless, etc.

 

[F1fan]

In many ways we have become a 'throw away' society, whether the unborn or the elderly, the homeless, etc.

We definitely see others, if outsiders, as competitors to our limited resources. Those who don't like tax money being used to support the poor is an example of this, and they see the poor as lesser and useless. It's a way we dehumanize others and this makes it easier to devalue their lives.

 

[We Never Know]

I've been thinking about this issue, as it seems to underlie multiple issues which are commonly discussed - from gun control, COVID, abortion, and many other issues.

The central assumption seems to be that we care about the value of human life, so anything that could save lives is considered a good thing. I think most decent human beings agree with this, and I can't find any fault with the principle itself.

But do people really, truly believe that, or is it something more of an abstraction? Obviously, it's normal and natural for people to care about the lives of people close to them - friends, family, co-workers, and even online acquaintances.

Or sometimes it might be extended to one's own countrymen. One might hear of a plane crash from overseas where they might say "300 people killed, including 2 Americans." When hearing stuff like that, some Americans might think "Oh no! Americans were killed!" without really considering the other 298 people onboard.

Sometimes, the issue of the value of human life might come up in a gun debate. Someone might bring up the fact that many people die in traffic accidents, which would insinuate that people may not care as much about human life which is lost, when it's under different circumstances that wouldn't necessarily fall into a specific topic.

Along the same lines, many arguments seem to be rooted in statistical analyses, in which human life seems reduced to a number, even if it may be compelling data.

And then I consider how many people are often just discarded and forgotten, for whatever reason. The homeless, the helpless, the mentally ill, the poverty-stricken, the oppressed - a lot of suffering out there, yet finding people to care about them is like searching for water in the desert.

There are also those who have a mindset which might be influenced from a military point of view, where they might view human deaths as "casualties of war" or "collateral damage." It's not that they don't care about the loss of human life (although some probably don't), but they may see it more in terms of a sacrifice they're willing to make for some higher cause.

So, my questions on this are:

- Is it automatically a given that people should care about all human lives everywhere, and we should be sad about the loss of life regardless of the circumstances?
- Or do we only care about some lives more than others - either our close friends, family, etc.?
- Do we care more about the lives of our countrymen more than those in other countries?
- Or is it more a question of circumstances of how people die? If they die in a mass shooting, is that worse than if they died in a traffic accident?

People die, life goes on.This says it clearly.

 

[Aštra’el]

I appreciate death just as much as I appreciate life.

 

[Nakosis]

I've been thinking about this issue, as it seems to underlie multiple issues which are commonly discussed - from gun control, COVID, abortion, and many other issues.

The central assumption seems to be that we care about the value of human life, so anything that could save lives is considered a good thing. I think most decent human beings agree with this, and I can't find any fault with the principle itself.

But do people really, truly believe that, or is it something more of an abstraction? Obviously, it's normal and natural for people to care about the lives of people close to them - friends, family, co-workers, and even online acquaintances.

Or sometimes it might be extended to one's own countrymen. One might hear of a plane crash from overseas where they might say "300 people killed, including 2 Americans." When hearing stuff like that, some Americans might think "Oh no! Americans were killed!" without really considering the other 298 people onboard.

Sometimes, the issue of the value of human life might come up in a gun debate. Someone might bring up the fact that many people die in traffic accidents, which would insinuate that people may not care as much about human life which is lost, when it's under different circumstances that wouldn't necessarily fall into a specific topic.

Along the same lines, many arguments seem to be rooted in statistical analyses, in which human life seems reduced to a number, even if it may be compelling data.

And then I consider how many people are often just discarded and forgotten, for whatever reason. The homeless, the helpless, the mentally ill, the poverty-stricken, the oppressed - a lot of suffering out there, yet finding people to care about them is like searching for water in the desert.

There are also those who have a mindset which might be influenced from a military point of view, where they might view human deaths as "casualties of war" or "collateral damage." It's not that they don't care about the loss of human life (although some probably don't), but they may see it more in terms of a sacrifice they're willing to make for some higher cause.

So, my questions on this are:

- Is it automatically a given that people should care about all human lives everywhere, and we should be sad about the loss of life regardless of the circumstances?
- Or do we only care about some lives more than others - either our close friends, family, etc.?
- Do we care more about the lives of our countrymen more than those in other countries?
- Or is it more a question of circumstances of how people die? If they die in a mass shooting, is that worse than if they died in a traffic accident?

About 2 people die every second. Of the 40 or so who died during the time it took you to read this post, how many of those lives did you value?

We value those that directly effect us and perhaps to a lesser degree those that the media brings to our awareness.

To say we value human life, considering that in the majority of cases we don't I feel is kind of hypocritical.
We live, we die. We value what we directly experience.
Beyond that, we like to feel we value human life, whether we actually do or not.

 

[Augustus]

I've been thinking about this issue, as it seems to underlie multiple issues which are commonly discussed - from gun control, COVID, abortion, and many other issues.

The central assumption seems to be that we care about the value of human life, so anything that could save lives is considered a good thing. I think most decent human beings agree with this, and I can't find any fault with the principle itself.

But do people really, truly believe that, or is it something more of an abstraction? Obviously, it's normal and natural for people to care about the lives of people close to them - friends, family, co-workers, and even online acquaintances.

Or sometimes it might be extended to one's own countrymen. One might hear of a plane crash from overseas where they might say "300 people killed, including 2 Americans." When hearing stuff like that, some Americans might think "Oh no! Americans were killed!" without really considering the other 298 people onboard.

Sometimes, the issue of the value of human life might come up in a gun debate. Someone might bring up the fact that many people die in traffic accidents, which would insinuate that people may not care as much about human life which is lost, when it's under different circumstances that wouldn't necessarily fall into a specific topic.

Along the same lines, many arguments seem to be rooted in statistical analyses, in which human life seems reduced to a number, even if it may be compelling data.

And then I consider how many people are often just discarded and forgotten, for whatever reason. The homeless, the helpless, the mentally ill, the poverty-stricken, the oppressed - a lot of suffering out there, yet finding people to care about them is like searching for water in the desert.

There are also those who have a mindset which might be influenced from a military point of view, where they might view human deaths as "casualties of war" or "collateral damage." It's not that they don't care about the loss of human life (although some probably don't), but they may see it more in terms of a sacrifice they're willing to make for some higher cause.

So, my questions on this are:

- Is it automatically a given that people should care about all human lives everywhere, and we should be sad about the loss of life regardless of the circumstances?
- Or do we only care about some lives more than others - either our close friends, family, etc.?
- Do we care more about the lives of our countrymen more than those in other countries?
- Or is it more a question of circumstances of how people die? If they die in a mass shooting, is that worse than if they died in a traffic accident?

I'd say we have empathy increasing factors and empathy decreasing factors.

The default I'd say is we don't really care.

If just told "a person in Tajikistan just died in a car crash" you probably feel nothing.

See a picture of their children crying and you might feel sad though.

Anything that personalises the victim or puts their death in a narrative context we can identify with increases empathy (and vice versa).

Anything that makes us see the victim as being "like us" increases empathy (and vice versa).

Anything that makes us view them as an enemy though decreases empathy. Lots of people currently wish death on Russian soldiers or celebrated the deaths of anti-vax types for example.

Outside of personal relations, the narrative is what defines if we feel sad, feel happy or feel nothing.

 

[PearlSeeker]

It is sociology and psychology. We are biologically capable of holding around max 200 humans as personal relationships. The rest of humanity is a function of learned norms depending on culture.

According to a study by Robin Dunbar at the University of Liverpool, social group size is determined by primate brain size.[12] Dunbar's conclusion was that most human brains can really understand only an average of 150 individuals as fully developed, complex people. That is known as Dunbar's number. In contrast, anthropologist H. Russell Bernard and Peter Killworth have done a variety of field studies in the United States that came up with an estimated mean number of ties, 290, roughly double Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth median of 231 is lower because of upward straggle in the distribution, but it is still appreciably larger than Dunbar's estimate.[13][14]

Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion sociologically in his book, The Tipping Point, where members of one of his types, Connectors, were successful by their larger-than-average number of close friendships and capacity for maintaining them, which tie together otherwise-unconnected social groups. According to such studies, then, "tribalism" is a hard-to-escape fact of human neurology simply because many human brains are not adapted to working with large populations. Once a person's limit for connection is reached, the human brain resorts to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes and other simplified models to understand so many people.[citation needed]

Source: Tribalism - Wikipedia