Are some Peoples Lives Simply more Important that Others?

[Ghostpanther]

Of course. Anyone being honest will have their preferences on who they would save out of a group of people they know if they had to make a choice.

[breadisfunny]

clearly rich people are more important than poor people according to republicans.

[schwarzkopf]

I'd say that, generally speaking, all lives are worth the same and are as important as the next.

That is idealistic rubbish.... it is obvious that some lives are worth more and far more important.

This is not an inherent property, rather a developed one ....

[Powerogue]

I think it's pretty obvious one person's death will have more impact than another. The world won't crumble to ashes when I die, for example. We just try to value people's lives equally as far as rights whenever possible.

I'd say it'd be most accurate to say that, while our life, blood pumping and all that, is the same, what we do with that adds or subtracts from that base value. Take it away, Mewtwo.

[HumbleDuck]

In 1904, Einstein's life was worth w/e a patient clerk was worth.

I WILL not value a life on what they MAY do. I will value it based on what they HAVE done.

That is wrong. In 1904 Einstein's life was more valuable than 1906, because if he would have lost his life in 1906 , we would only loose part of his work, but in 1904, everything would have been lost.
I did not say we should value lives based on what people may do. I argued as we do not know what they may do, assigning a value to a life before death is impossible.
You see this type of evaluations based on their current social status is what made social classes. And they are harmful concepts.

Edit: wow, this is almost unreadable. Too tired to fix it, sorry.

[kail]

On a personal level, no. I'll save a myself, a family member or friend over some stranger.

Even on a non-personal level, there are those who would hold more value. This is obviously considering there is some difficult decision to be made where one has to die, say a single antidote dose to save person X or Y. Beyond that, everyone's lives hold a pretty ultimate value and we seek goals and advancement to reduce deaths wherever and whenever.

No. Lives are equal in value.

When you are stuck with saving one or another, you will start to calculate your decision.

[HumbleDuck]

On a personal level, no. I'll save a myself, a family member or friend over some stranger.

Even on a non-personal level, there are those who would hold more value. This is obviously considering there is some difficult decision to be made where one has to die, say a single antidote dose to save person X or Y. Beyond that, everyone's lives hold a pretty ultimate value and we seek goals and advancement to reduce deaths wherever and whenever.



When you are stuck with saving one or another, you will start to calculate your decision.

Sure, but that is not the topic.

[yetgdhfgh]

Simple truth YES

We live in the western world so white anglo saxon people have more importance cause we live in white anglo saxon dominated world.

Iam as white Anglo saxon as you can possible be so i understand why this is so and you aint gonna change that mind set when people see how worthless life is in 3rd world countries where i could link you a video of someone being necklaced IE lynched just for theft! When life means nothing there people ask why life of a different colour should matter here.

[supermage]

I would argue that in absolute terms one life matter no more than another, but the vast majority of us live in societies where some human lives are deemed more important than others. For example, from the view point of societal hierarchy the lives of doctors, scientists, attorneys, and CEO's matter more than the lives of plumbers, construction workers, retail clerks, and field laborers.

Should people simply start accepting that some human lives are more important than others within the context of our societies? Upon acceptance of this ideology would unequal treatment of upper and lower class citizens be justified?

I personally feel like this is already happening but no one has said it in clear words. The lower class of society is seen as expendable; therefore, unequal treatment of lower class citizens in society is seen as justifiable.

This is a pretty fucked up way to look at peoples lives and society, but it seems to be pretty legitimate and well grounded reasoning.

The truth is a fucked up man.

No one on that United Airlines flight felt like this. Someone else could have volunteered their seat once they saw that doctor being harassed. But nope. Everyone was out for themselves.

[NicoWolf]

Those are all good question that I think should be talked about more rather than avoided.

Seeing as you've been banned, I know I'm talking into the wind, but let's give it a go, shall we?

Imagine if you opened up your phone, tablet, or logged into reddit to find the top post being about the government debating the creation of a meritocracy (which is what we're discussing thus far). Imagine learning that YOU fall below the expected standard of contributive/productive value that they expect of you. You also learn that you would be unable to rise up and meet those standards. You'd be asking yourself a lot of questions; do I lose my job? My home? What happens to my family? Will we be deported? Executed? Homeless?

One might conclude that this is no different from a caste system, but that is demonstrably untrue. A caste system holds no sway over one's actual productive potential, but rather their social standing. This does directly affect their productive value, but that effect is purely forced; it is not a failure of the individual to meet a goal, but his inability to attain the position necessary to begin working toward that goal.

In this instance, however, you are simply dead flesh, fat to be trimmed from the meat slab of life. You may possess some quantitative value, but it falls short of the expectation.

The true horror of this line of thinking goes beyond one's potential value in society. The horror lies in that others will have the power to set the standard that you must invariably reach in order to be considered a worthy member of society; worthy of services, compensation, and all other benefits that come with meeting and maintaining said standard. A standard that we would assume is set in accordance with everything we believe to be in realm of equal and just; more so if we meet that standard.

This is the reason we should avoid these questions because while logically meritocracy is a pretty good idea, it is still subject the inherent corruptive nature of man when he is given power over another.

To sum up; would any of you trust your peers to decide for you the standard of value needed to be eligible for merely the basics of living? I know I wouldn't.

[Deleted]

What does "importance" or "worth" imply? And to whom? And why should we presuppose that a life inherently has any "importance"? Life has the importance we subjectively attach to it - if someone you've never heard of dies, it doesn't touch you the slightest bit, but if life is inherently worth something, shouldn't it?
That being the case, we can only ever make subjective or strictly utilitarian statements about it, and even that is subject to change at any time.

[Zelorra]

I only care about family and friends. The rest can go fuck themselves. But even removing this very subjective opinion, it remains the objective one: the life of a genius is much more important than the life of the every day retard you meet on the internet. The life of a strong leader is much more important than the life of a fucking coward. And so on and so on. Pretending that all lives are the same is pretty fucking stupid. It would only apply if everyone would live in isolation with no effect on the other's lives...

[Theodarzna]

In a truly cosmic sense, no life is really all that important.

[Allybeboba]

clearly rich people are more important than poor people according to republicans.

According to anyone that considers themselves to be "rich" it seems.

- - - Updated - - -

No one on that United Airlines flight felt like this. Someone else could have volunteered their seat once they saw that doctor being harassed. But nope. Everyone was out for themselves.

Actually the doctor thought he was better.

[Tijuana]

I would argue that in absolute terms one life matter no more than another, but the vast majority of us live in societies where some human lives are deemed more important than others. For example, from the view point of societal hierarchy the lives of doctors, scientists, attorneys, and CEO's matter more than the lives of plumbers, construction workers, retail clerks, and field laborers.

Should people simply start accepting that some human lives are more important than others within the context of our societies? Upon acceptance of this ideology would unequal treatment of upper and lower class citizens be justified?

I personally feel like this is already happening but no one has said it in clear words. The lower class of society is seen as expendable; therefore, unequal treatment of lower class citizens in society is seen as justifiable.

This is a pretty fucked up way to look at peoples lives and society, but it seems to be pretty legitimate and well grounded reasoning.

The truth is a fucked up man.

Doctors are not more important at all. Their higher wages are due to scarcity of the skills, and the ability to obtain them. Supply and demand never goes away, and it never stops working. But that doesn't mean society has intentionally set out to honor them more via their salary. If that were true, and scarcity was not present, then we would all be doctors, and we would all make the same money. Obviously, what you describe is not what is going on, in any way.

- - - Updated - - -

According to anyone that considers themselves to be "rich" it seems.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually the doctor thought he was better.

Few people describe themselves as "rich". You would be amazed how much money people can make, and not realize they are wealthy.

The doctor didn't think he was better, he thought his work was more important. It's not necessarily virtuous how he felt, but it's not exactly selfish either. There is a fair case to be made that he was thinking of his patients when he said that.

[Nadiru]

Of course some people's lives are more important than others, but that doesn't mean you know which is which in advance.

[Vash The Stampede]

The life of a person that's homeless is equal to that of a billionaire living in luxury. Both in my opinion has an equal right to live. That's how I see it. To see it any other way gives those in power the right to determine who is worthy of living. This is why I believe in not killing in any circumstance, and why everyone deserves health care.

But that's not how the world works today. Your value is determined by your net worth. Your right to live is determined by your income. That's what separates an organ donor and an organ receiver. The ability to buy medication, and seek treatments for any illness. This seems more so the situation in America than other countries.

[IIamaKing]

That is wrong. In 1904 Einstein's life was more valuable than 1906, because if he would have lost his life in 1906 , we would only loose part of his work, but in 1904, everything would have been lost.
I did not say we should value lives based on what people may do. I argued as we do not know what they may do, assigning a value to a life before death is impossible.
You see this type of evaluations based on their current social status is what made social classes. And they are harmful concepts.

Edit: wow, this is almost unreadable. Too tired to fix it, sorry.

I get what you are saying, but in 1904, not 2017 looking back at 1904, Einstein was just a patent clerk. Anything unpublished, or unreleased is moot. In 1904 his life was worth the sum of his achievements.

Its still the hypothetical of "they MAY do more". Well they may also do less, may do things that diminish the value of previous work. A life is worth the sum of their current achievements. Not possible future achievements.

I am happy to agree to disagree on this though. I fully understand where you are coming from, I just simply do not agree.

[HumbleDuck]

I get what you are saying, but in 1904, not 2017 looking back at 1904, Einstein was just a patent clerk. Anything unpublished, or unreleased is moot. In 1904 his life was worth the sum of his achievements.

Its still the hypothetical of "they MAY do more". Well they may also do less, may do things that diminish the value of previous work. A life is worth the sum of their current achievements. Not possible future achievements.

I am happy to agree to disagree on this though. I fully understand where you are coming from, I just simply do not agree.

Exactly, that is why I said you only can evaluate ones life after it ended. ( Sometimes even years after that)
Yes, you can assign a value to a person's life based on current achievements, but that is not the total value of their life, it's a partial value.
Let me explain why I think it's important to value all lives equally. If we take our lives more important than those less fortunate that us, then logically we should ignore them as statistically there is little chance they would be of any help in the future. But when in our world 21000 people die every day of hunger, there is a good chance we are loosing an Einstein every year.
But if we take all lives at similar value, we logically will have to support less fortunate people as much as we support fortunate bimbos such as Kardashians. And if we manage to save one of those Einsteins, that alone would justify all the resources "wasted" on others.