Is it right to put people first?

[James R]

But with everyone having the same "intrinsic value" simply negates the entire idea of value.

Not at all. Saying that people have intrinsic value is equivalent to saying that we should respect the desires and plans and projects of other people, and not treat them merely as tools to use for our own purposes, irrespective of what they want.

 

[MetaKron]

Not at all. Saying that people have intrinsic value is equivalent to saying that we should respect the desires and plans and projects of other people, and not treat them merely as tools to use for our own purposes, irrespective of what they want.

How's that working for the animal rights movement?

 

[MetaKron]

Oh, sure, James. But with everyone having the same "intrinsic value" simply negates the entire idea of value. It's exactly the same as saying nothing!

See? Once again we're stuck with idea/principle of man simply tooting his own horn, then agreeing that it's a wonderful sound. Like a gorilla beating his chest and yelling at the moon to prove he's hot shit. Hmm?

Baron Max

I can't agree with the idea that intrinsic value means that we can't use them, live with them, eat them, or whatever. If we have the same intrinsic value it's a level plain. We have the same rights. Humans are simply better at implementing them. We also have the right to replace what we destroy, and that is the thing that the animal rights activists work the hardest to stop. We want to do the right thing and the activists will interfere with that until they get it exactly the way we want it, and they will pretend to a moral superiority that they don't have.

Every hostile takeover of an area of human enterprise has always been masterminded by the most immoral, destructive, nastiest people on Earth and this is not only no exception, it's one of the worst.

 

[swarm]

The value of humans is that we can build more complex and importantly, more functional structures of anything, and keep them going for long periods of time. We have intrinsic worth. We have not only food that other animals value, we have love and safety and medical care.

Actually termites build far more advanced structures than we do. Do termites have more intrinsic worth?

I don't see how any of that is intrinsic worth any way. Things you create or do would give you extrinsic worth, i.e. worth derived from the item or action.

 

[swarm]

Hmm, it seems the intrinsic value of the cow is to be tastey and produce valuable leather products. We should honor this.

 

[draqon]

Hmm, it seems the intrinsic value of the cow is to be tastey and produce valuable leather products. We should honor this.

HHHHmmmmmmmmm

IT SEEMS THE INTRINSIC PURPOSE OF THE HUMAN IS TO BE BBQ'D

 

[Baron Max]

Not at all. Saying that people have intrinsic value is equivalent to saying that we should respect the desires and plans and projects of other people, and not treat them merely as tools to use for our own purposes, irrespective of what they want.

So we should all respect the desires and plans and projects of ....murderers, rapists, pedophiles, sadists, brutal dictators, serial killers, ..., Muslims who stone little girls to death because they were raped, ....?

Remember now, you said earlier that Mother Theresa and a vicious murderer had the same intrinsic value, right?

See, James? "Intrinsic value" is nothing more than humans being elitist and egocentric ...that's all it is! Your ideals have overloaded your good sense ...if you even have any, that is!

Baron Max

 

[MetaKron]

Actually termites build far more advanced structures than we do. Do termites have more intrinsic worth?

I don't see how any of that is intrinsic worth any way. Things you create or do would give you extrinsic worth, i.e. worth derived from the item or action.

James says that intrinsic worth is your worth to yourself. This seems to be something that animal rights activists sell and don't want you to look at too closely. They seem to be trying to push us into believing that every animal has the same intrinsic worth and that means that humans should not eat animals. I have read both their rhetoric and their actions and I see that they also push the belief that humans are worth less than the animals, and that our worth to ourselves is worthless.

They're saying that we are equal but all non-human animals are more equal than humans. The logic of their doctrine changes shape to fit situations in which they would otherwise lose the debate for lack of a reply. As long as they have this negativity against their own race they can justify, to themselves, any bad logic, any deliberately distorted science, and any other lies.

They will take down all animal breeders, farmers, meat processors, and pet stores, if they can, and justify that using the actions of a few people who don't do those things as well. They will firebomb people who say that the animal rights groups should be shut down and their influence eliminated due to the violence that some animal rights activists practice, thus making the opposite claim, that the actions of a few should not be blamed on the majority.

The best reason not to get caught up in their arguments is because they argue in bad faith. When your argument is superior they won't admit it anyway. They "expect" you to admit the alleged superiority of an argument that you know is wrong and poorly made. There is no fair play when they argue. They don't believe that they have to play fair.

 

[Enmos]

Intrinsic value is bullshit (Sorry James), it is completely subjective.

 

[James R]

So we should all respect the desires and plans and projects of ....murderers, rapists, pedophiles, sadists, brutal dictators, serial killers, ..., Muslims who stone little girls to death because they were raped, ....?

Insofar as they do not infringe on the desires and plans and projects of other people, yes.

Which pretty much rules out the defining actions of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, sadists (except where their victims are willing), brutal dictators, serial killers and people who stone others.

Remember now, you said earlier that Mother Theresa and a vicious murderer had the same intrinsic value, right?

Yes.

See, James? "Intrinsic value" is nothing more than humans being elitist and egocentric ...that's all it is!

No. I already explained what it means, and that ain't it.

 

[James R]

Intrinsic value is bullshit (Sorry James), it is completely subjective.

Quite the opposite. It is completely objective. It treats like as like. It recognises that [enc]equal consideration[/enc] must be given to like beings.

 

[MetaKron]

Quite the opposite. It is completely objective. It treats like as like. It recognises that [enc]equal consideration[/enc] must be given to like beings.

A concept cannot "recognize" anything and this concept is a false flag.

 

[swarm]

Quite the opposite. It is completely objective. It treats like as like. It recognises that [enc]equal consideration[/enc] must be given to like beings.

Seems you hang with the word "like."

 

[Baron Max]

(Baron Max) "So we should all respect the desires and plans and projects of ....murderers, rapists, pedophiles, sadists, brutal dictators, serial killers, ..."

Insofar as they do not infringe on the desires and plans and projects of other people, yes.

Hmm, wait a minute, James! By the very definition, a murderer, et.al., have been convicted of "infringing" on others. So by your statement above, that seems to mean that once someone does something "bad", then you ...adjust his "intrinsic value"? "Intrinsic value" can be adjusted??

Hmm, and if we can "adjust" the "intrinsic value", then all humans can't have the same "intrinsic value" as you've said previously. You're confusing, James, and I think it's because you're trying to explain an entirely false proposition.

(Baron Max) "Remember now, you said earlier that Mother Theresa and a vicious murderer had the same intrinsic value, right?"

Yes.

Yes? They have the same "intrinsic value"? And yet a few posts above, you said categorically that a murderer's "intrinsic value" was the same as Mother Therea's? But then in this post, you've disagreed with your own pronouncement of that earlier ideal.

The interesting part of this whole deal is that you seem to give everyone an equal "intrinsic value", yet apparently you can deduct some of that value with each "bad" act that they do. And, by the way, just who does this deduction of "intrinsic value" as life goes on?

You're terribly confusing, James. From one post to the next, you seem to change your concept/ideal of "intrinsic value" every time I ask you a different question!

I'm afraid that you, like ol' Hype, have let your idealism run away with your common sense and rational thinking. As I've said many times, idealism is it's own best defense. But in trying to answer anything about it, idealists often go off on such weird, sci-fi tangents that they tie themselves up in pipedream bullshit. You've done just that in this thread, James!

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

Quite the opposite. It is completely objective. It treats like as like. It recognises that [enc]equal consideration[/enc] must be given to like beings.

Hmm alright I see what you mean now.
While I agree with the principle I don't view it as anymore as an aside.
The principle speaks of intrinsic value as relating to human interests. I think this is actually quite dangerous, because most people do not view many animals (apart from livestock and pets) as beneficial.
It other words, humans are still central according to this principle. So while the intent of the principle may be honorable, it still shows humans arrogance.

 

[MetaKron]

That's a strawman concept for you, Baron. Its meaning is going to change with the weather.

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

Hmm, wait a minute, James! By the very definition, a murderer, et.al., have been convicted of "infringing" on others. So by your statement above, that seems to mean that once someone does something "bad", then you ...adjust his "intrinsic value"? "Intrinsic value" can be adjusted??

No. I'm not adjusting the murderer's intrinsic value at all by pointing out or even punishing the evil he does.

A priori, a murderer has the same value as any other human being. However, it turns out that the murderer chooses to infringe moral norms and cannot be allowed to be a free man in normal society - at least not until some attempt has been made to reform him and he has taken some steps to "pay" for his crime.

I get the impression that you regard some people as good and others as evil - unchangable natures that are set in stone, probably from birth.

Yes? They have the same "intrinsic value"? And yet a few posts above, you said categorically that a murderer's "intrinsic value" was the same as Mother Therea's? But then in this post, you've disagreed with your own pronouncement of that earlier ideal.

No. Crimes have consequences. That in no way denies intrinsic value to criminals. On the other hand, torturing or mistreating them does.

Understand?

The interesting part of this whole deal is that you seem to give everyone an equal "intrinsic value", yet apparently you can deduct some of that value with each "bad" act that they do.

No. Not at all. All criminals are entitled to natural justice, for example, because of their intrinsic value.

You're terribly confusing, James. From one post to the next, you seem to change your concept/ideal of "intrinsic value" every time I ask you a different question!

My concept and idea of intrinsic value doesn't change at all. You just don't understand it. But give it time.



Enmos:

Hmm alright I see what you mean now.
While I agree with the principle I don't view it as anymore as an aside.
The principle speaks of intrinsic value as relating to human interests.

No, and this is quite important. It speaks of the intrinsic value, not of human beings, but of persons. "Persons" can, and I submit should, include certain non-human animals.

 

[swarm]

A priori, a murderer has the same value

You have yet to show that value is not null.

It recognises that equal consideration must be given to like beings.

Seems you still hang with the word "like."

 

[MetaKron]

I would certainly not let an animal rights activist decide my morality for me, based on strawman ideals or anything else.

 

[Enmos]

No, and this is quite important. It speaks of the intrinsic value, not of human beings, but of persons. "Persons" can, and I submit should, include certain non-human animals.

Ok, but certain non-human animals is not enough. I suspect 'certain non-human-animals' is limited to those directly beneficial to humans.