"life is sacred"

[theskald]

I often hear the phrase "life is sacred." It doesn't always mean the same thing when people say it, and some consider the words themselves to be self evident while others have afforded the phrase more thought. I'm betting on the latter being mostly true here, and have not started this thread for the sake of touting my own opinions as fact.

I think this idea is worth discussing and would like to hear different views on it. I'll start with a few questions, some I've heard and some I thought up myself.

1. What does the word "sacred" mean in this context, and does sanctity require someone for life to be sacred to?
2. What does the word "life" mean in the phrase "life is sacred," from your perspective?
3. Is all life sacred, or is there a certain point at which the loss of life becomes inconsequential (i.e. it's more about sentience or suffering or only synapsids count etc.)?
4. Can a living thing "forfeit" its sanctity? For example a serial killer or a lion that has developed a taste for human meat.
5. By what metric might one measure sanctity, assuming there are degrees of it at all?

"Why?" should be implicit on all of these. One, more practical question is whether this idea should affect our behavior, and in what way.

Depending on how specific you feel like getting, this may be helpful (I can't really be bothered to check how up to date that is).

 

[Speedo]

The phrase doesn't really mean anything. It's just a way for one side try and assert that they have the moral authority in an argument.

 

[Masquerouge]

My opinion is that a brief look at how we treat life now, and how we treated life in the past, should make it really clear that life is obviously NOT sacred.

 

[fishjie]

all life is not created equally sacred. i stomp on bugs all the time without a second thought. i eat meat and dont give it a second thought. i 100% support abortion because it lowers the crime rate. i support death penalty for some of the more sick and twisted murderers out there. so on and so forth. all life is sacred is just hippy talk.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

My view is that (leaving aside my specifically religious views on the matter, which are very important to me but don't really help me much in this discussion) it is kind of a useful fiction. We often DON'T treat life as sacredly (ie with as much importance or seriousness) as we should, but it would be of great benefit to society if we did.

 

[theskald]

My view is that (leaving aside my specifically religious views on the matter, which are very important to me but don't really help me much in this discussion) it is kind of a useful fiction. We often DON'T treat life as sacredly (ie with as much importance or seriousness) as we should, but it would be of great benefit to society if we did.

I was expecting the previous answers, and I mostly agree (sanz death penalty). If you think the religious support can stand on it's own merits then please share it. Maybe I should clarify that this is not in any way concerning abortion. At least that's not what I intended to discuss.

I'm particularly interested in answers the specific questions asked But if no one has much to say on it I guess I'll add something. I think that when many people say this they mean we should consider life valuable and avoid ending it, or in other words that killing should be a very serious thing regardless of the context and not taken lightly, and I tend to agree with that. Some extend this to animals as well, and this is where I get confused--which animals, exactly? I find that some only seem to care about cute, fuzzy things. Other base it on whether or not the creature is sentient or conscious, but offer no metric to gauge that.

Perhaps a better question is what can be considered generally ethical when it comes to killing, be it directly or indirectly.

all life is not created equally sacred. i stomp on bugs all the time without a second thought. i eat meat and dont give it a second thought. i 100% support abortion because it lowers the crime rate. i support death penalty for some of the more sick and twisted murderers out there. so on and so forth. all life is sacred is just hippy talk.

Others do give it a second thought. Though I mostly agree with you, your point of view has to have some basis.

My opinion is that a brief look at how we treat life now, and how we treated life in the past, should make it really clear that life is obviously NOT sacred.

True, but is there no merit to the idea that we, living in a less brutal time, can start looking at things differently? I certainly don't think in the same way as my ancestors. Do you?

The phrase doesn't really mean anything. It's just a way for one side try and assert that they have the moral authority in an argument.

Often the case, but let's give SOME of them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, I don't think the sanctity of life means we can never end it for no reason, just that it better be a very good one. I support capital punishment as a legitimate penalty that the state can give in extreme cases - if it helps protect other life. (Granted, I think that there is almost never any reason to actually apply it as the costs are greater than the benefit, but that is a utilitarian argument.)

 

[Phlegmak]

I would say that life is mostly sacred. My only absolute regarding this subject is that if a living creature doesn't have to be killed, then just leave it alone and let it live.

 

[Masquerouge]

True, but is there no merit to the idea that we, living in a less brutal time, can start looking at things differently? I certainly don't think in the same way as my ancestors. Do you?

You seem to assume that it has to do with violence. I can find a lot of non-violent ways today that show that life is de facto not sacred, even if we're less "brutal" than our ancestors.

 

[Shylock]

Every sperm is sacred

 

[AngryPinkMoose]

"life" meaning every living organism.

 

[Masquerouge]

"life" meaning every living organism.

Hey good point, what about germs? We're a lot tougher on germs that we were 200 years ago. Has the sanctity of germ-life gone down the drain?

 

[Bill3000]

We hold life to be sacred, but we also know the foundation of life consists in a stream of codes not so different from the successive frames of a watchvid. Why then cannot we cut one code short here, and start another there? Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement?

 

[AngryPinkMoose]

Hey good point, what about germs? We're a lot tougher on germs that we were 200 years ago. Has the sanctity of germ-life gone down the drain?

I think so. Most people don't give bacteria the respect they deserve. Probably because they make us sick most of the time.

 

[Brighteye]

The concept of sanctity is a way for something to be rendered unquestionable; authority, a line of reasoning, a person or his actions... anything.
Those of us who question things will never properly understand this concept because it is more of a feeling than a justifiable ideology, or, if we do understand it in its entirety then it is as worthless as has been stated.

When someone says that life is sacred they are expressing a feeling, not a belief, opinion or argument. I tend to treat it as such. This feeling is, I think, something like an awe and reverence for the amazing difference between life and inanimate things; for the way that growth and replication can be sustained despite their seeming fragility.

Your other questions are then anathema to a person who spouts this sort of thing. You are asking someone to quantify a feeling; to fit it into a logical system, and it doesn't work. People then become defensive and unco-operative, which is counter-productive.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, what keeps you from killing people then?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, what keeps you from killing people then?

The desire and need for social order.

IIRC, 90% of the cells in our bodies are "resident aliens" and not "us". The five life processes differentiate us from the rocks and sand, but the same chemical processes that affect them, affect us. And even though humans have greater awareness than most othe rliving things, nature is pretty indescriminate in how we are treated.

We impart value to the other living things we prefer to have around and show little regard for those we don't. So for humans life is "situationally" sacred. If, god alone is, then all matter has its place in creation, living or not. We should treat it all as kindly as we can.

 

[theskald]

You seem to assume that it has to do with violence. I can find a lot of non-violent ways today that show that life is de facto not sacred, even if we're less "brutal" than our ancestors.

No, I do not. I'm trying to be the... Opposing viewpoint's advocate, here. However, what you said is relevant as it brings attention to my actual questions, particularly: "What does the word "sacred" mean in this context, and does sanctity require someone for life to be sacred to?" and "Is all life sacred, or is there a certain point at which the loss of life becomes inconsequential (i.e. it's more about sentience or suffering or only synapsids count etc.)?" I think it's best to give those who say this phrase a chance to clarify what they mean, instead of assuming it's de facto false because we unconsciously end life every day. There is more to their position than that.

I think so. Most people don't give bacteria the respect they deserve. Probably because they make us sick most of the time.

I respect E. Coli as long as it stays where it's supposed to be.

We hold life to be sacred, but we also know the foundation of life consists in a stream of codes not so different from the successive frames of a watchvid. Why then cannot we cut one code short here, and start another there? Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement?

That is the first tme I have ever heard "brook" used that way in any conversation ever, well done, sir! I'm not so sure about your analogy, nor do I really understand your point. Do you mind clarifying?

The concept of sanctity is a way for something to be rendered unquestionable; authority, a line of reasoning, a person or his actions... anything.
Those of us who question things will never properly understand this concept because it is more of a feeling than a justifiable ideology, or, if we do understand it in its entirety then it is as worthless as has been stated.

When someone says that life is sacred they are expressing a feeling, not a belief, opinion or argument. I tend to treat it as such. This feeling is, I think, something like an awe and reverence for the amazing difference between life and inanimate things; for the way that growth and replication can be sustained despite their seeming fragility.

Your other questions are then anathema to a person who spouts this sort of thing. You are asking someone to quantify a feeling; to fit it into a logical system, and it doesn't work. People then become defensive and unco-operative, which is counter-productive.

I hate to admit it, but you're probably right. It seems like another word for faith and I haven't heard any other definition for it, I suppose I should go with my gut. I still hold out hope that someone can defend the idea on its own merits, or at least has given it some thought.

Well, what keeps you from killing people then?

Would the answer "the idea of killing someone fills me with a basic, instinctual revulsion" satisfy? This is the case for me so I don't really need to convince myself to be non-murderous. It does tend to be more beneficial for a species to cooperate and not kill each other (though that hasn't stopped Congo chimps from cannibalizing each other for no reason), so there's the utilitarian argument as well. In the end I like to think most people agree more with the "let's not kill each other" side, the problem is that "each other" means only those within the group. That's really a whole different debate, I think.

The desire and need for social order.

[...]

We impart value to the other living things we prefer to have around and show little regard for those we don't. So for humans life is "situationally" sacred. If, god alone is, then all matter has its place in creation, living or not. We should treat it all as kindly as we can.

Well said. Do you think that implies illusory value? To me this "situational" value is value enough.

 

[Shadylookin]

I would say it's a complete lie. earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, monsoons, asteroids, and a whole host of other things end life. A few of them to the point of near global extinction. Not to mention what life forms do to other life forms to kill them. If there's some divine providence declaring life to be sacred it's sure doing a crap job of it.

 

[Bill3000]

That is the first tme I have ever heard "brook" used that way in any conversation ever, well done, sir! I'm not so sure about your analogy, nor do I really understand your point. Do you mind clarifying?

Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.