What's the secular, rational basis of the value of life?

[Insomniac]

I know atheists often (and rightly) complain when the actions of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are pinned on atheism, but in some sense, I don't see what their complaint is. Hitler was probably closer to Martin Luther than Karl Marx when it came to religion, but there was a certain secular biological rationality in his actions. Considering Jews and Slavs subhuman may not be supported by scientific evidence, but there's a naturalistic justification for expanding territory, eliminating rivals, reproducing prolifically, and replacing them.

And I mean, if a person isn't contributing something to society, like a mentally retarded person or an enormously wealthy person advanced in age, why not remove them from society for everyone else's benefit?

I'm not saying atheists can't act ethically, but I've yet to see any evidence we don't live in a purely materialist universe or that a human being is more special than anything else. If your horse can no longer run, you put him down. If your child is going to be born crippled, abort it. If it advantages your country that another's no longer be there, destroy it. The only question is your chances of success.

Again, I'm not painting atheism as evil, but doesn't the value of a human life require some irrational belief in the immaterial?

[EVILution!]

Life sucks asshole.

[Phil Theehor]

Life sucks asshole.

Then end yours, anus. The man asks a great question.

[Phil Theehor]

I'll tackle this from a slightly different angle. Life has value to the person living it, regardless of the value the rest of the world sees in it. Depending on your relgious beliefs, it may very well be the only one you have.

So, regardless of whether or not we value it, I do think we are morally bound to respect it-- and certainly barred from taking it. I know I tend to ask this question a lot, but what would give one person the right to determine the value of another's life and then act on that determination?

[Insomniac]

Insurance companies.

[Archetype]

Hitmen.

[EVILution!]

Then end yours, anus. The man asks a great question.
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide - Albert CamusInstead of fleeing the absurd meaninglessness of life (i.e. suicide), we should embrace life passionately. I dunno if there is an argument for ethics within that statement, but it does help provide an argument for meaning from the atheistic perspective. Once you have meaning, you have the basic foundation from which to build a worldview which could include an ethical system.

Take Buddhism for example, the Buddha made a similar statement to mine - "All life is suffering" - yet he also managed to create an ethical system that didn't rely on commandments from a higher authority.

[mototwo78]

I know atheists often (and rightly) complain when the actions of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are pinned on atheism, but in some sense, I don't see what their complaint is. Hitler was probably closer to Martin Luther than Karl Marx when it came to religion, but there was a certain secular biological rationality in his actions. Considering Jews and Slavs subhuman may not be supported by scientific evidence, but there's a naturalistic justification for expanding territory, eliminating rivals, reproducing prolifically, and replacing them.

I think you're unjustly associating naturalism with secularism. The two are not necessarily intertwined; you can have one without the other. You don't state specifically what the "naturalistic justification for expanding territory, eliminating rivals, reproducing prolifically and replacing them" is. What is that justification?

And I mean, if a person isn't contributing something to society, like a mentally retarded person or an enormously wealthy person advanced in age, why not remove them from society for everyone else's benefit?

What sort of cost-benefit analyses have been drawn up for these situations? Caring for mentally retarded may not allow the retarded to be super productive members of society, but their incapacitance gives their caretakers jobs and presumably some sense of worth? How do you weigh those benefits against the "societal costs" of the non-productive handicapped?
Utilitarian cost-benefit analyses seem quite rational but I'm pretty sure the massive flaws that such an ethical system has would make it unpopular, even among the nonreligious. I mean, shouldn't we chop you up and use all those juicy, functional organs of yours to save 5 other people who are in dire need of your heart, liver, legs etc? Sacrifice 1 for the benefit of 5, right?
Doesn't seem very ethical to me, and I'm one of those cold, calculating naturalists.

Again, I'm not painting atheism as evil, but doesn't the value of a human life require some irrational belief in the immaterial?

I don't think ethical treatment is a total lost cause in the absence of supernatural belief, even though I recognize that this claim has some pretty strong historical opposition. Throughout history and across all cultures supernatural belief has gone hand in hand with morality--to the point that I think such beliefs are completely normal cogintive "outputs".

Regardless, I can honestly say that I don't believe in immaterial souls or beings so if an n of 1 is good enough for you, then no, valuing human life does not require belief in the immaterial. Also, I doubt I'm the only nonreligious person to fall in that vein.

That said, I'm not sure I can rationally justify why I value human life, depending on how stringent your requirements for rationality are. So maybe we can shorten your question to "doesn't valuing human life require some irrational belief?".

I would say probably, but maybe there is some uber badass atheist on this board that can prove me wrong. Arch? Oh wait..

[Morfin]

I agree with the noob. An atheist may not believe in a higher power, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe in doing what is right or just, as defined by our own mind, the philosphers, and society.

It is correct, that if we boil it down to bare bones, living like the animals -- meaning non-humans -- then it is pure survival of the fittest and might makes right. The weak and infirm are sacrificed to help the pack/herd, and the mightiest take the food, territory and females that they want and can. This also includes the natural fact that, once the young are mature and able to live for themselves, the parents have satisfied the one and only one purpose in live -- passing on the genes to the next generation. In that respect, once they become non-productive in terms of helping the pack/herd, feeding the pack/herd, they serve no value whatsoever.

As an atheist, I value my life and the life of others no less than a believer: I want to live the best I can, I want to raise the best child I can, because that is what I want to do and how I believe I should act -- both based on my opinon and the societal limits that I have agreed to abide by. Meanwhile, believers want to do all that as well, for those same reasons and also because of a desire for a good place in the afterlife. That is the sole difference, in my mind.

[Insomniac]

Yeah, but believers have a "rational" basis of their actions in that God says so. Faith requires some irrationality, but once you make the leap, you can take logical steps. If people have souls, if God instructs you to care for widows and orphans, if kindness helps you grow for your next life, then you should take care of the weak and "useless."

See, I think you can argue that you should take care of the elderly because you hoped to become one someday, but not the retarded. Taking care of them may provide jobs, but you can give many more jobs to people by having them dig ditches with pickaxes instead of using a machine. That doesn't hold up.

If we consider it okay for someone to abort a baby they know is going to be severely physically or mentally disabled, why not later? They certainly aren't going to be less expensive to take care of.

[Morfin]

See, I think you can argue that you should take care of the elderly because you hoped to become one someday, but not the retarded. Taking care of them may provide jobs, but you can give many more jobs to people by having them dig ditches with pickaxes instead of using a machine. That doesn't hold up.

If we consider it okay for someone to abort a baby they know is going to be severely physically or mentally disabled, why not later? They certainly aren't going to be less expensive to take care of.

But that's a whole 'nother issue -- one that transcends believers v non-believers. I am an atheist but I personally find abortions disgusting -- I recognize the legality of the situation, but I am definitely pro-life. And I believe I have a good argument about allowing euthanasia but not abortions (but that is for anther day/thread).

I think you have to step back a bit. To me the issue isn't one of justifying whether it is in Society's best interests to allow abortion, euthanasia, culling of the infirm, or whether any of those are "right." To me the issue is one step removed from that (and this is where I thought your original question was going): Believers believe some act is "right" because of the Bible or what their religion asserts is right. But non-believers do not have that source of authority, so from where do they derive their sense of right and wrong. And this gets into issues of natural law, Hobbes and some of the other, where I have little book-learning and where I venture with trepidation armed with little more than my self-taught beliefs and opinions.

[freegood]

Here's the thing, lets say you loathe an issue you know it's wrong, like abortion, but for whatever circumstances somehow encourage it as an option.

If you're religious and opposed it with moral emphasis, then you (or eventually will) realize that you're a hypocrite.

If you're an atheist, then you merely changed your mind.

[mototwo78]

Yeah, but believers have a "rational" basis of their actions in that God says so. Faith requires some irrationality, but once you make the leap, you can take logical steps. If people have souls, if God instructs you to care for widows and orphans, if kindness helps you grow for your next life, then you should take care of the weak and "useless."

OK well then I guess I don't see how the believer's situation is much different from the nonbeliever's. If claiming God as their basis for their actions is good enough, then I guess I can claim "societal norms" as the basis for mine. What is the difference? Considering that I don't believe in the existence gods, why should I concede that actions based on them are anymore justified than the ones I make based on societal norms?

I'm not arguing that the believer's position is more difficult or faulty than mine, only that they aren't significantly different from a logical point of view.

See, I think you can argue that you should take care of the elderly because you hoped to become one someday, but not the retarded. Taking care of them may provide jobs, but you can give many more jobs to people by having them dig ditches with pickaxes instead of using a machine. That doesn't hold up.

Well maybe the 60 year old women that care for retards can't wield pickaxes. Regardless, the main point I was making there was that I doubt we can come up with a system that fairly calculates the cost/benefits of retards, elderly etc. And beyond that, I doubt the utilitarianism that follows from any such system would be ethically satisfying once people realize what it entails (hence the part about sacrificing you to save 5).


If we consider it okay for someone to abort a baby they know is going to be severely physically or mentally disabled, why not later? They certainly aren't going to be less expensive to take care of.

Probably because the unborn physically affects the mother it resides in, whereas there is no such connection for a 5 year old. It's a question concerning the priority of the mother's body over the baby. I'm not really interested in arguing this point, I'm only pointing out what current U.S. law is based on.