I had a neat conversation with Jessie the other day following up on my post about the value of human life. Apparently, my desire to seek clear-cut, agreed-upon definitions for terms being utilized in a discussion has netted me a sly new moniker, as illustrated by this conversational shard:
(12:39:58)JessieRose33: Ok: Discussion: Does a person’s life have value? Even if said value could be zero.
(12:40:21)Restless Warrior: We have to be very careful with our definitions here.
(12:40:25)JessieRose33: I’m saying the question itself is an implicit valuation. It gives value by being asked.
(12:40:41)Restless Warrior: If by “value” you mean the same thing as saying that a hamburger has some finite value, for example, then I’d say yes, a person’s life has value.
(12:40:53)JessieRose33: Yes, semantics-boy, I’ll watch it.
(12:41:13)JessieRose33: Ok, fine. Let’s discuss value. What is “value?”
(12:41:23)Restless Warrior: Good question!
(12:41:42)JessieRose33:(Semantics-boy, AWAY!)
I went on to define value by saying, “Two things are of equal value (to a person) if that person is willing to give up one to get the other, and vice versa.” This conversation proceeded to have several interesting twists and turns. At times, I displayed much geekiness:
(12:57:09)Restless Warrior: So, for example, let’s say I believe Dubya is more valuable dead.
(12:57:13)JessieRose33: A value of non-existence.
(12:57:15)Restless Warrior: That still doesn’t mean I’m going to assassinate him.
(12:57:49)Restless Warrior: Because by killing him, we subtract his living value, and add his dead value, but we also subtract the (somewhat intangible) value of my moral integrity, for having to perform the killing.
(12:58:01)Restless Warrior: So, since I value my moral integrity more than I would value Dubya’s death, I will not be killing him.
(12:58:18)JessieRose33: Moral Math!
(12:58:22)Restless Warrior: :-D
And my social science bullshit was not limited to economics. I rambled on about sociological constructs, as well:
(12:58:52)JessieRose33: Ok, what is morality other than the fear of being caught? Of negative repurcussions.
(12:59:11)Restless Warrior: My integrity is not simply the fear of being caught. It’s an internalized set of norms that would lead me to experience remorse.
(12:59:19)JessieRose33: A fear of being lower-valued.
(12:59:49)Restless Warrior: It’s also the knowledge that since many share those norms, as well as norms that cause them to react to deviants more negatively, I would incur more negative reactions from people by breaking the norms.
(13:00:28)Restless Warrior: It is more advantageous to me to maintain moral integrity, so that I get what I want more often from people who respect that integrity.
(13:00:42)Restless Warrior: It’s a great system, because it keeps everyone in line despite the fact that humans are self-interested bastards.
Ultimately, though, I was outgeeked:
(13:25:04)JessieRose33: Sigh. Valuation is inevitable.
(13:25:08)Restless Warrior: It is.
(13:25:18)Restless Warrior: Some religions have tried to change the focus from self to others, however.
(13:26:00)Restless Warrior: Of course, it’s futile, since the shift is just a trick. We still value ourselves, we just begin artificially valuing the happiness of others, internalizing bogus norms, and thus make ourselves happy by making others happy, and by avoiding the guilt of violating the norms.
(13:26:02)JessieRose33: It usually just creates a separate sub-folder in self called “others” which gratifies the self by doing things for others.
(13:26:09)Restless Warrior: Exactly!
(13:26:15)JessieRose33: I’ve gotta go. Work calls.
(13:26:17)Restless Warrior: Wow, I can’t believe you phrased that more geekily than me.