"life is sacred"

[Rashiminos]

Considering something as sacred is very similar to considering the thing to be holy, as having a profound value that can't be reduced to mundaneness. It's a matter of holding special regard for the sacred object in question. More productive to this conversation, we're irreverent to things we do not consider to be sacred, to the point of universal disrespect.

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.

Fine, be my slave if that's how you feel, tool.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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

No, the value people put on things that are important to them is not illusory. They can be truely valued and their loss painful. Holding "life sacred" implies that there is a "standard" that is outside the situational standards which we impose every day. Such overarching standards tend to be more absolute, but more importantly, they impose an orderliness to the world that is not obvious through observation. "Orderliness" is important to people and we tend to look for ways to bring it into our lives. Religious principles is a popular way to do that, but it is only one of many. Actions people take and beliefs they hold are usually not important in and of themselves, but are a means to an end that usually is tied to keeping their view of life and the world "orderly" and understandable. I believe that this search for "order" is very fundamental to life.

 

[DNK]

Every sperm is sacred

But is every sperm great?
Some need to be wasted
Because they are cut-rate

 

[Smidlee]

"Life is sacred" 99.9% of the time is referring to "Human life". The meaning is there is more to a human being than a pile of meat, animal,etc. ,thus having a soul. A human soul is sacred as of having great value, very precious in the site of God. "life is scared" has eternity in mind as man has to stand before God to give an account.

 

[Stylesjl]

George Carlin nailed it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Djohakx_FE

(Warning NSFW)

 

[theskald]

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.

Clearly you haven't understood a word I've written either, I never insisted anything of the sort.

No, the value people put on things that are important to them is not illusory. They can be truely valued and their loss painful. Holding "life sacred" implies that there is a "standard" that is outside the situational standards which we impose every day. Such overarching standards tend to be more absolute, but more importantly, they impose an orderliness to the world that is not obvious through observation. "Orderliness" is important to people and we tend to look for ways to bring it into our lives. Religious principles is a popular way to do that, but it is only one of many. Actions people take and beliefs they hold are usually not important in and of themselves, but are a means to an end that usually is tied to keeping their view of life and the world "orderly" and understandable. I believe that this search for "order" is very fundamental to life.

I agree completely.

"Life is sacred" 99.9% of the time is referring to "Human life". The meaning is there is more to a human being than a pile of meat, animal,etc. ,thus having a soul. A human soul is sacred as of having great value, very precious in the site of God. "life is scared" has eternity in mind as man has to stand before God to give an account.

That is my assumption, too, but I was hoping to hear another opinion on the matter. I guess people that believe this don't want to defend their point of view.

George Carlin nailed it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Djohakx_FE

(Warning NSFW)

 

[Bill3000]

Clearly you haven't understood a word I've written either, I never insisted anything of the sort.

What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output.

 

[Souron]

Life is sacred, because you do not want to die. In order to justify this desire you must either say that life is sacred, or expect yourself to be self sacrificing at every opportunity. Being self sacrificing only makes sense if you have a non-selfish purpose in life, which implies you have very low self esteem. But if you assume you have any value, then you must accept that your life is sacred. Further, no doubt your not wanting to be dead is a very strong desire, which translates to it being all the more sacred.

But of course you're not the only one here. And if you postulate that your life is sacred, the surely everybody else's lives are sacred too. But who is everybody else? how broad is that category? I don't think that anybody considers algae growing in the basement sacred, but most consider their friends lives comparable in worth to their own. Because this is such a major meter of worth, people tend to be generous in defining the category of things with sacred lives. Personally I draw the line at humans, and am grateful that those things in scifi that blur the line aren't real.

 

[Souron]

"Life is sacred" 99.9% of the time is referring to "Human life". The meaning is there is more to a human being than a pile of meat, animal,etc. ,thus having a soul. A human soul is sacred as of having great value, very precious in the site of God. "life is scared" has eternity in mind as man has to stand before God to give an account.

So basically what you are saying is life is sacred because God says so.

 

[choxorn]

"So, at best, the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest."
-George Carlin

He has clearly ended all debate of the subject with this statement.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"So, at best, the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest."
-George Carlin

He has clearly ended all debate of the subject with this statement.

Not at all. His position is just the one which atheism boils down to. There are lots of other ways to think about it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So basically what you are saying is life is scared because God says so.

You know, I keep reading the thread title as "life is scared". Good times.

(I think his answer is perfectly legitimate, by the way. God sanctified human life as one of the attributes of God is the ability to sanctify something by His nature.)

 

[theskald]

You know, I keep reading the thread title as "life is scared". Good times.

(I think his answer is perfectly legitimate, by the way. God sanctified human life as one of the attributes of God is the ability to sanctify something by His nature.)

Eran, since you're one of the few to answer this thread from an opposing perspective, do you think you could provide an answer to the last three questions? Even if it's in the context of religion.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

These 3? Speaking in religious terms, this is what I think:

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.)?
All life is sacred, having been created by God. But the more like God it is (in terms of intelligence, or cognitive ability) the more consequential it is to kill it.

4. Can a living thing "forfeit" its sanctity? For example a serial killer or a lion that has developed a taste for human meat.
No, a life is still sacred even if it needs to be ended for one reason or another.

5. By what metric might one measure sanctity, assuming there are degrees of it at all?
It's not really quantifiable, but like I said it has to do with cognitive ability. And since variations within our species are much less than variations between species, being smarter doesn't make you any more "sacred".

 

[theskald]

Interesting. On #4, could you clarify what you mean by "if it needs to be ended"?

And a follow up question, though it may be too personal: Is there some standard by which you judge something to be more like God or is it just a feeling? Is this something one judges for oneself on a case by case basis? I can understand if it's just a feeling, as the life of my dog is certainly important to me though she's not human.

And more specifically to #3, is there a line you can draw at which it becomes unarguably okay to end a life (of any sort)?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

For #3, I try to take a more-or-less utilitatarian view - it is okay to end a life (human or not) when it is threatening yours, or when necessary to prevent greater suffering. But in the second case, it better be a darned good reason.

For #4, it is kind of arbitrary, but I would go by how much mental power something has. I may be attached to my dog (I am not, because I don't have one, but I could be) but I would kill it to save a human life if I had to.

 

[theskald]

For #3, I try to take a more-or-less utilitatarian view - it is okay to end a life (human or not) when it is threatening yours, or when necessary to prevent greater suffering. But in the second case, it better be a darned good reason.

For #4, it is kind of arbitrary, but I would go by how much mental power something has. I may be attached to my dog (I am not, because I don't have one, but I could be) but I would kill it to save a human life if I had to.

That's what I was looking for, this is a much more satisfying argument for someone who does not believe in a personal/any god. It sounds perfectly realistic and level-headed to me.

I, too, tend to resort to utilitarianism when faced with an abstruse ethical question

 

[Ecofarm]

Considering something as sacred is very similar to considering the thing to be holy, as having a profound value that can't be reduced to mundaneness.

Not religious for me. I don't believe in any supernatural crap. I'm just an ecologist. So quit pretending that the religious people do not have a solid foundation to stand upon in science (on this issue).

Atheist ecologists around the world believe in the sanctity of life (due to inter-dependence, not god). It's a purely selfish motive - the preservation of our biosphere and the knowledge that any piece could unpin life as we know it.

Life is the only meaningful resource, we should not haphazardly waste it.

 

[theskald]

Not religious for me. I don't believe in any supernatural crap. I'm just an ecologist. So quit pretending that the religious people do not have a solid foundation to stand upon in science (on this issue).

Atheist ecologists around the world believe in the sanctity of life (due to inter-dependence, not god). It's a purely selfish motive - the preservation of our biosphere and the knowledge that any piece could unpin life as we know it.

Life is the only meaningful resource, we should not haphazardly waste it.

Does that mean you take an absolutist view? What of the OP questions, then?

 

[Ecofarm]

Does that mean you take an absolutist view? What of the OP questions, then?

I posted before the questions were added and my responses on page one probably answer those questions, but I'll run through them anyway.

What does the word "sacred" mean in this context, and does sanctity require someone for life to be sacred to?

Sacred means of greatest value. The most important resource. Whether humans exist or not, this remains true.

What does the word "life" mean in the phrase "life is sacred," from your perspective?

It means living. I don't like to kill plants, but I need to eat.

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.)?

All life is sacred.

Can a living thing "forfeit" its sanctity? For example a serial killer or a lion that has developed a taste for human meat.

Even when life must be taken (whether to liberate people or eat), it is still sacred.

By what metric might one measure sanctity, assuming there are degrees of it at all?

No degrees. All species are all equal from an ecosystem perspective.

(See: Deep Ecology) Though I do not agree with all of that philosophy, I agree with the part quoted below and some other things (replacement fertility, etc).

Spoiler :

Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy) that considers humankind an integral part of its environment. Deep ecology places greater value on non-human species, ecosystems and processes in nature than established environmental and green movements. Deep ecology has led to a new system of environmental ethics. The core principle of deep ecology as originally developed is Arne Næss's doctrine of biospheric egalitarianism — the claim that, like humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how" and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely utilitarian environmentalism, which it argues is concerned with resource management of the environment for human purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology