• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The value of life?

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
OK so I am wrestling with this in my mind. And before I write this post I will upfront tell you this is an attempt to address MANY posters who question how a God, or at least one of the bible could allow all the death and pain we see in our lives. I believe in God, but join in with the question of "How can God be pleased with, or allow this to happen".

For each person the threshold is different when considering the value of life. We drive down the road knowing we will kill a certain number of bugs, we walk through the woods knowing we are killing small insects under our feet. ( I know there is a section of eastern thought that values ALL life equally, and they live as monks in monestaries, these are the only exceptions I suppose)
Yet, generally speaking the bigger or more complex the life form becomes we tend to associate misery with the loss of those lives.
If we run over a turtle, or hit a deer, the feelings change in our minds when compared to the death of an ant.

So, what I am wrestling with is how we rationalize this threshold? We as humans generally speaking don't seem to mind killing smaller life forms as long as it is in our pursuit of our lives. We justify the bugs on the windshield because we have to drive to work, and we have to go to work to survive. There are of course a thousand reasons why it is acceptable to kill these life forms.

However, as we graduate to humans everything changes (for most people). We prize our lives above all. So at this point I try to see the situation in a couple of ways.
1)If I was God would I care so much if I lost one or one billion of these life forms (humans)? And just because I lose some does that mean I am not a God of Love? If as we humans can kill along our path of living our lives, can not God do the same and be a good God?
2)If we as humans have the ability to turn off or simply ignore the reality that we extinguish life all day long as we move about, than maybe it is the same for God.

I do know we as humans are capable of great acts of love, and yet we can mercilessly kill many things at the same time.

At least I am being honest about this. I see where atheist are coming from, and other philosophical minds are coming from. So as a christian I don't mind asking the same question, because I think it is fair to analyze what we consider Love=God, God=Love vs our moral fabric and how we can do the things we do.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Setting aside the fact, that most atheists aren't atheists, because they see atrocities happening, and think how could a god let this happen. Most atheists would simply say, where's the evidence. But that aside, Life seems to work on a chance bases. Things happen that happen. For instance, if a plane with 150 people aboard and only one survivor, I see no reason to attribute the one survivor to a supernatural cause, because what about the 149 that died? If we were playing odds with "god" he would be on the short end of the stick.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Personally, I find the concept that human life is somehow of higher value than other forms of life to be quite odd.

We have the advantage of self awareness (although there are those among us that don't use it), but other than that, I see nothing that separates us (at all) from say - a dolphin.

Keep in mind - I'm not a Buddhist or Hindu - I'm an agnostic.
 
Well, I did go to New Dehli about a week ago. I loved the trip, and I've got some great pictures.

Love the Brahma bulls walking the streets.
I love riding the rickshaws, except for the choking pollution. Did you see Akshardham by any chance? In Noida, opposite the site for the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
 

3.14

Well-Known Member
value of life = procimity+duration exposed+projection of own emotions
 
Last edited:

CarlinKnew

Well-Known Member
( I know there is a section of eastern thought that values ALL life equally, and they live as monks in monestaries, these are the only exceptions I suppose)

Even bacteria and, say, an ebola virus? Those are also forms of life.

So, what I am wrestling with is how we rationalize this threshold?

Each of us determines this "threshold" as an individual. Some enjoy hunting, others are disgusted by it. Some wouldn't step on a spider, others would gladly squish it. These are facets of the individual's morality, which is the product of genes and environmental influences.

1)If I was God would I care so much if I lost one or one billion of these life forms (humans)? And just because I lose some does that mean I am not a God of Love? If as we humans can kill along our path of living our lives, can not God do the same and be a good God?

2)If we as humans have the ability to turn off or simply ignore the reality that we extinguish life all day long as we move about, than maybe it is the same for God.

We need to kill in order to survive. After all, we're simply a poorly evolved mammalian species. God (if he existed) could do whatever he wants. For God it would be effortless to prevent all suffering. A God who willingly allows suffering is not a good God, he is immoral.
 

Heneni

Miss Independent
Very interesting thread. I havent given it much thought but certainly want to now. What has come to mind as i was reading the OP was that perhaps we are more afraid of bacteria, virusses, spiders, bugs than we are of antelope? So therfore we are more willing to kill them out of fear than we are an antelope. But then again we might not feel the need to feel sorry for a dead lion, when it looked like considering us for food.

Pehaps we kill easier that which we fear? What we fear, as in bacteria, or virusses, or bugs or spiders or lions are easier to kill than things we dont fear. So the value of life is determined by how comfortable i am with that life around me? Isnt that why we value the life of a criminal less in the sense that its not all that hard to send them to the gas chambers knowing that its one less 'bug' to worry about?
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
A God who willingly allows suffering is not a good God, he is immoral.

Ahh but that is based off of your definition of morality. Seeing we are capable of killing to survive, and as you put it we are survivalist, who are you or we to say what is immoral or not?
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Very interesting thread. I havent given it much thought but certainly want to now. What has come to mind as i was reading the OP was that perhaps we are more afraid of bacteria, virusses, spiders, bugs than we are of antelope? So therfore we are more willing to kill them out of fear than we are an antelope. But then again we might not feel the need to feel sorry for a dead lion, when it looked like considering us for food.

Pehaps we kill easier that which we fear? What we fear, as in bacteria, or virusses, or bugs or spiders or lions are easier to kill than things we dont fear. So the value of life is determined by how comfortable i am with that life around me? Isnt that why we value the life of a criminal less in the sense that its not all that hard to send them to the gas chambers knowing that its one less 'bug' to worry about?
Excellent contribution.
 

Heneni

Miss Independent
I think it gets more complicated when we consider the moral aspect of the value of life and distinctly more complicated when we consider the christian aspect of it.
 

CarlinKnew

Well-Known Member
Ahh but that is based off of your definition of morality. Seeing we are capable of killing to survive, and as you put it we are survivalist, who are you or we to say what is immoral or not?

Right, we need to kill in order to survive. God, if he existed, wouldn't need to allow any suffering to happen, but he does. That is immoral.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Right, we need to kill in order to survive. God, if he existed, wouldn't need to allow any suffering to happen, but he does. That is immoral.
I guess what I am confused on with your response is the fact you can come up with a definition of moral or immoral. How can we have survival as our main driver comfortably define immoral or moral?
Think about it? In the world you/we are painting here is not a world where webster's definition will work for what is immoral. We are stating we as humans act of an instinct to survive, but we assume God does not act based on a need to survive.
So seeing we are not comparable in your view, how can we apply our idea of immoral to a God?
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
I think it gets more complicated when we consider the moral aspect of the value of life and distinctly more complicated when we consider the christian aspect of it.

I guess we have to part ways on this, Heneni.

I don't even consider the "Christian aspect" when trying to determine the value of life.

I do agree that it isn't hard at all (at least, not for me) to send a killer to the gas chamber. I know that our system of justice (in America) is deeply flawed, and I am not talking about a generic criminal. I am talking about a person that is a stone cold killer, with irrefutable evidence of his crimes (i.e. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy).
 

CarlinKnew

Well-Known Member
I guess what I am confused on with your response is the fact you can come up with a definition of moral or immoral. How can we have survival as our main driver comfortably define immoral or moral?

So you're confused by the fact that I have a sense of morality? Here's an example that I think we will all agree on:

A patient is dying a slow, painful death. A doctor is standing nearby who could immediately cure the patient, or at least give him a quick, painless death. Instead, the doctor does nothing. That is an immoral action.

Think about it? In the world you/we are painting here is not a world where webster's definition will work for what is immoral. We are stating we as humans act of an instinct to survive, but we assume God does not act based on a need to survive.
So seeing we are not comparable in your view, how can we apply our idea of immoral to a God?

Anyone, even a god, who allows someone to suffer pointlessly, is immoral. Why is that so hard to understand?
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
I love riding the rickshaws, except for the choking pollution. Did you see Akshardham by any chance? In Noida, opposite the site for the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
The pollution was incredible, but then, when you put 15 million people in an area that small, that has to be expected.

I did like the fact that all public transportation is either already running on compressed natural gas, or is switching to it. Also, they are working very hard on having the overhead train system set up and running.

Beautiful people. The city itself is full of history. Great place to visit. I wish I had had more time. Oh yeah - did I mention the heat? Hotter than the shores of hell, for a fat man.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
So you're confused by the fact that I have a sense of morality? Here's an example that I think we will all agree on:

A patient is dying a slow, painful death. A doctor is standing nearby who could immediately cure the patient, or at least give him a quick, painless death. Instead, the doctor does nothing. That is an immoral action.

Anyone, even a god, who allows someone to suffer pointlessly, is immoral. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm liking this guy more and more.
 
Top