• 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!

Value of human life

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
We've had a bunch of threads on Ukraine and now the Israeli-Hamas war which had the value of human life as a focus and seemed to count lives lost and the barbarity of attacks. But when it comes to other civil and other wars, the suffering, and loss of life don't attract equal attention. To me an Israeli life, a Palestinian life, a Ukrainian life and a Sudanese life have the same value. Politics plays a role here because politicians pander to their constituents to get votes and campaign contributions. Can anyone name a politician who truly cares about human life lost in such tragedies? Is there any politician who really tries to find ways to end such wars rather than mouthing support? Or perhaps even to trying as hard to reduce the suffering that occurs rather than just shipping weapons and nothing more? As John Donne put it:

No man is an island

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends`s or of thine own were.

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.

Rebel militias rout Sudanese army in Darfur, mass killings reported

The military has repeatedly bombed civilian neighborhoods, and the RSF, which is allied with several ethnically Arab militias, has been blamed for multiple attacks on hospitals and mass killings, as well as ethnically motivated attacks in the western region of Darfur. So far 6 million people in Sudan have fled their homes and half of the population needs urgent aid.
...
“On Sunday, many four-wheel-drive vehicles came and entered the camp, and the killing continued until the evening,” he said. “After midday, they attacked us with motorcycles because cars cannot drive in those narrow streets. I hid in one of the houses, and I was hearing abuse and killing from nearby people. They said to people, ‘O slaves,’ and described us as allies of the army.” The ethnically Arab militias often use the term as an insult against ethnically African groups.
...
The threat of a clash between the Zaghawa and the RSF has raised fears that parts of Darfur could be plunged back into the civil war that devastated the area two decades ago, when Arab militias known as the Janjaweed — meaning “devils on horseback” — burned villages, killed civilians en masse and used mass rape as a weapon of war.
 

vulcanlogician

Well-Known Member
Well, let's see ...
Franklin Delano RooseveltJimmy CarterBernie SandersJan SchakowskiNelson MandelaJacinda Arden...

Aren't some of those names exceptions to the rule? Or do you think your average run-of-the-mill politician is more-or-less on par with the folks you listed?
 

vulcanlogician

Well-Known Member
Not one is a true Scotsman. :rolleyes:

You'll have to clarify how I might have commited the Scotsman fallacy. I'm not saying I didn't. Just that I'll need an explanation of how I did.

In order to make an error in reasoning, one must have a conclusion that doesn't follow from the given premises. If my conclusion was: It is impossible for a politician to care, your list would be a fine counterexample. By my claim... my conclusion... was that it's hard to tell who really cares and who is pretending. Listing a bunch of names of politicians who obviously possessed moral concern for others does little to challenge my conclusion. You'd first have to make the case that MOST politicians embody that level of compassion. I think your list fails to make that case.

We should avoid the Scotsman fallacy, true. But strawmen are equally problematic.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Well, let's see ...
Franklin Delano Roosevelt​
Jimmy Carter​
Bernie Sanders​
Jan Schakowski​
Nelson Mandela​
Jacinda Arden​
..​
Yes my OP was stated in an extreme way. And there are certainly shades of grey involved. But it's also true that my level of frustration at what is going on is very high.

I was not claiming that there are no political people with humanitarian viewpoints. The focus of my OP was to contrast how Ukraine and the Middle East are treated one way but other brutal wars are treated a different way. Bernie Sanders, for example, certainly has a decent view of what's needed there. But I could not find a corresponding statement about the Sudan. And is he really ready to "walk the talk" with his vote when it comes to not supporting an Israeli government that has been part of the problem (before and now after the war is over)?
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Not one is a true Scotsman. :rolleyes:
Yes my OP was stated in an extreme way. And there are certainly shades of grey involved. But it's also true that my level of frustration at what is going on is very high.

I was not claiming that there are no political people with humanitarian viewpoints. The focus of my OP was to contrast how Ukraine and the Middle East are treated one way but other brutal wars are treated a different way. Bernie Sanders, for example, certainly has a decent view of what's needed there. But I could not find a corresponding statement about the Sudan. And is he really ready to "walk the talk" with his vote when it comes to not supporting an Israeli government that has been part of the problem (before and now after the war is over)?

Bernie Sanders no more .. done a 180 on his previous position .. Strike that scotsman from the list .. sad but true.
 

Rachel Rugelach

Shalom, y'all.
Staff member
Well, let's see ...
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Jimmy Carter​
Bernie Sanders​
Jan Schakowski​
Nelson Mandela​
Jacinda Arden​
..​

@Jayhawker Soule, in 1939 Franklin Delano Roosevelt turned away 900 Jewish refugees who had come to the U.S. by ship to escape the Holocaust. The ship had no choice but to go back (neither Cuba nor Canada would accept the Jewish refugees, either). Many (if not all) of those Jews forced to return were subsequently killed in the Holocaust.

I believe FDR regretted his decision, but he was under pressure from many Americans and particularly his advisors at the time to severely limit all immigration during the war because all immigrants were viewed as security threats at the time.

I'm just saying that sometimes politicians make hard decisions that are based on what their advisors tell them.

I believe that @sun rise was only speaking out of the same frustration and helplessness that many of us feel and, to be fair, national leaders must ultimately accept responsibility for the results of their actions, with history later serving as the final judge of all.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Yes my OP was stated in an extreme way. And there are certainly shades of grey involved. But it's also true that my level of frustration at what is going on is very high.
The problem with that level of frustration is that it serves as as argument for capitulation, which is precisely the logic of your "extreme" statement. After all, if no political leader gives a damn about the lives of others, why should you give a damn about elections?

There is an irony here; this type of despair-driven focussed misanthropy results in a political strategy that is the least caring.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I believe FDR regretted his decision, but he was under pressure from many Americans and particularly his advisors at the time to severely limit all immigration during the war because all immigrants were viewed as security threats at the time.
I'm just saying that sometimes politicians make hard decisions that are based on what their advisors tell them.
That's why I objected to the list. And in that decision his actions are no different than what we're seeing today with Trump and to a lesser extent Biden.
The problem with that level of frustration is that it serves as as argument for capitulation
When human life is sacrificed for political considerations then the political considerations can be taken as more important than the human life. There is an exception when "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." In such cases someone can make a painful decision without sacrificing the ideal.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's why I objected to the list. And in that decision his actions are no different than what we're seeing today with Trump and to a lesser extent Biden.

When human life is sacrificed for political considerations then the political considerations can be taken as more important than the human life. There is an exception when "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." In such cases someone can make a painful decision without sacrificing the ideal.
Nowadays, I'm hearing....
The needs of the few outweigh the lives of the many.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Nowadays, I'm hearing....
The needs of the few outweigh the lives of the many.
That's usually true in history. The king is more important than 10,000 peasants and so forth. What's needed is human maturity. Humanity 2.0 is promised but with no delivery date.
 
Top