James,
Interesting as always.
After a 20+ year career in the military where most of my fellow soldiers fall into the guardian type I do realize that even those good men can be manipulated into fighting any enemy if the justification is there. Many times in our history the propaganda demonized the enemy in order to make it easier for young men to kill them.
In many of the third world counties life is cheap. In some babies are killed because they are of the wrong sex. It is sometimes the Sparta justification where a weak baby is discarded for a strong baby. This justification has happened and probably will continue to happen until the end of time. The issue of abortion splits the population in half. Even those against it change their minds in cases of rape or incest.
I would like to think that everyone values life, but I think there are intrinsic values each personality holds that some value more important than life. How many choose death versus living a lifetime oppressed, diseased or without their love?
I miss your insightful conversations. I look forward to coming back to class once my work and traveling calms down.
My thoughts:
Thanks for your thoughts and insight. Always interesting.
A universal value is recognized as universal, not when everyone values it the exact same way, but when all people partake in the value in some way. In this case, all people do not have to value all life, but only some life (self or others) to participate in the “valuing” of life at all. And they do – they either value their own life, or someone else’s, perhaps even their group or tribe. But where this comes from is, philosophically, a little more complex.
A recent New York Times article made the case that from grade school children are being exposed to a mode of thinking that is both confusing and wrong - that there are no moral facts, no such thing as moral truth, only facts that can be scientifically proven or its contradiction, personal opinion.
Now, I often write about the "value of life" as being a motivational and instinctual fact, to the extent that no one can deny its existence or participation. And to be sure, the value of life involves two distinct aspects, the physical - life itself - with the meta-physical in orbit around it. The meta-physical would be all that we consider worthwhile in life, including the sense of "ought-ness" and obligation referenced within values, morals, ethics, justice, and rights.
The two are so closely aligned, like the moon orbits the earth, it is my opinion they should not be considered mutually exclusive. But what is clear, is that the meta-physical is only important because life is vital to us. The moon imparts an influence upon the earth, but without the earth to orbit, why would that influence matter? The truth here is simple: without life to influence, the meta-physical aspects humanity considers worthwhile do not matter. And in terms of morality, that notion can be a pill too bitter to swallow for some, for it opens the door to moral fact and how we can know it.
.jpg)
Is there any value or moral or ethic or justice or right worth the taking of innocent human life? That is the operative question. It is not to ask whether people will take innocent life - obviously they will and do for all kinds of reasons. This is to ask for a value judgement - whether they ought to. Under the law, if a person kills an innocent for their own reasons, we call it "murder," even if they believe those reasons are moral, ethical, just, or their "right."
Now, if there is any meta-physic worth killing innocent life for, it could be used to refute the priority of the value of life as the standard of value judgments. But if not, it represents a powerful argument against moral relativism, since any rebuttal must make the claim that life is a relative value - worthwhile only to some, but not all - and thus forfeits life as the standard to whatever arbitrary value notion one has faith in to create such gravitas.
Now, if there is any meta-physic worth killing innocent life for, it could be used to refute the priority of the value of life as the standard of value judgments. But if not, it represents a powerful argument against moral relativism, since any rebuttal must make the claim that life is a relative value - worthwhile only to some, but not all - and thus forfeits life as the standard to whatever arbitrary value notion one has faith in to create such gravitas.
But therein lies the rub of contradiction - no meta-physical value notion exists that is not morally calibrated unless by humanity's protection of respect for "life itself." To make their case, moral relativists will at some point have to argue for the "moral-ness" of murdering innocent human life.
Though there are heinous acts around the world (and always will be), and from culture to culture disparities arise as to their ethical behavior toward life itself, no one, even in those seemingly "life is cheap" cultures, would deny life has value, and must be valued to some degree. For if it were not, those societies and cultures would threaten collapse. In fact, we see failed states occur – take Africa – when the value of life is not respected, which is to say innocents are murdered because the meta-physical conceptions society is based upon (values, morals, ethics, justice, rights) have been twisted to serve at the pleasure of relative, arbitrary concerns, like any dictator or warlord employs them.
Because the value of life balances our respect for physical life with the demands for meta-physical value judgments, it also becomes the point of debate with the theory. As you stated, some folks respect life to differing degrees, although no one, even within the most contentious political, religious, or social debates, would deny that life itself has value and must be valued. If they did we could know with moral certainty that they're wrong. For whereas some can argue exactly how much influence the moon may impart upon the earth (claims of "degree"), no one in their right mind would argue the earth orbits the moon. It does not, it can not without upending the laws of celestial governance. And this is exactly how we ought to view meta-physical, relative concerns superseding life-sustaining universal ones - the upending of our Natural Laws.
Now some will claim this is all too problematic, for if life itself is to be the ultimate moral standard, we're looking at something terribly impractical as we’ll have to outlaw driving and processed foods, since they endanger life far too much, as well as any conception of “just war” or even self-defense since there will always be the chance of an enemy’s life being taken.
Though there are heinous acts around the world (and always will be), and from culture to culture disparities arise as to their ethical behavior toward life itself, no one, even in those seemingly "life is cheap" cultures, would deny life has value, and must be valued to some degree. For if it were not, those societies and cultures would threaten collapse. In fact, we see failed states occur – take Africa – when the value of life is not respected, which is to say innocents are murdered because the meta-physical conceptions society is based upon (values, morals, ethics, justice, rights) have been twisted to serve at the pleasure of relative, arbitrary concerns, like any dictator or warlord employs them.
Because the value of life balances our respect for physical life with the demands for meta-physical value judgments, it also becomes the point of debate with the theory. As you stated, some folks respect life to differing degrees, although no one, even within the most contentious political, religious, or social debates, would deny that life itself has value and must be valued. If they did we could know with moral certainty that they're wrong. For whereas some can argue exactly how much influence the moon may impart upon the earth (claims of "degree"), no one in their right mind would argue the earth orbits the moon. It does not, it can not without upending the laws of celestial governance. And this is exactly how we ought to view meta-physical, relative concerns superseding life-sustaining universal ones - the upending of our Natural Laws.
Now some will claim this is all too problematic, for if life itself is to be the ultimate moral standard, we're looking at something terribly impractical as we’ll have to outlaw driving and processed foods, since they endanger life far too much, as well as any conception of “just war” or even self-defense since there will always be the chance of an enemy’s life being taken.
But the rule to obtain moral truth is this: protect respect for the value of life and don't disrespect life for relative concerns. Not exactly a revolutionary idea, except when you put it in context against the meta-physical values that many folks believe are the highest values of society. Go ahead and choose one: love, goodness, kindness, honor, freedom, liberty, liberalism, conservatism - whichever value you might choose as number one, its particular formulation can only be morally factual by not disrespecting life for relative values. This means in essence, that in order to qualify as moral, each meta-physical value must protect respect for the value of life. If it does not, or when it does not, then you most assuredly have something immoral.
This is why thinking that any stand-alone meta-physical value is what civilized society ought to ultimately be aimed at and calibrated to, is to invite all manner of relative, subjective, and arbitrary valuation of said aspects that will inevitably supersede the sanctity and dignity of life itself, the innocent state of human "being."
The value of life unlocks and translates our contemporary debates by exposing our primal motives and inclinations. And our contextual conditions sheds light on its proportionality. Take the debate surrounding abortion, split along a continuum between those who believe unborn life is sacred and ought to be protected and those who believe in the right to choose abortion for any reason, at any time.
The value of life unlocks and translates our contemporary debates by exposing our primal motives and inclinations. And our contextual conditions sheds light on its proportionality. Take the debate surrounding abortion, split along a continuum between those who believe unborn life is sacred and ought to be protected and those who believe in the right to choose abortion for any reason, at any time.
Let us imagine a hypothetical world where no children were being born due to some unknown cause – a kind of “Children of Men” reality – and after decades of no new births, a woman becomes pregnant after being raped. Can we see how adamant "choice" views might change toward her right to abort, even when conceived during the violence of rape? And in our contemporary world, would it be somehow antithetical to our collective sensibilities if a woman who was raped decided not to abort the child? Not at all. In fact, many would see it as an act of love and compassion. Others would obviously see it as merely flushing filth from the sanctity of their body. But even in cases when abortion is deemed necessary to protect the life of the mother, do we think it out of the question if that mother chose to accept the risk to her life in trying to give birth? What if it were her last chance to have a child and a family?
In these cases, protection of the value of life is the primal inclination and motive. It is this aspect that can be confusing for all involved, and, like you pointed out, also used immorally to dehumanize others to make them easier to kill. Without constant calibration to the touchstone of the value of life and its natural law, we can easily slip off course in our meta-physical value judgments. In fact, during the Nuremberg Trials in the aftermath of World War II, Nazi officers, who had committed acts of unspeakable horror, were to face a new concept, "crimes against humanity" (supposedly formulated by natural law theorists), since the events within concentration camps had been legal under German law. This recognition of the rights embodied within our own humanity (our life value) paved the way for the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
So when I mention or write of the "value of life" it is always to these meta-physical aspects of ought-ness and obligatory precept, pulled in by the gravity and priority of our visceral, physical living lives. Like life, love is also a dual concept in which we can experience both physical and meta-physical aspects: our emotional (meta-physical) values of care, responsibility, and devotion can compel us toward lifetime pair-bonding, while sex (love-making) can unify couples through procreative drives to create new life and families.
Life itself gives rise to meta-physical aspects we might value about it. And only meta-physical judgment and articulation can laud priority and dignity upon life to ensure its proliferation, protection, and respect. This is Natural Law, granting us a scale upon which to apportion a protector (survivor) ethic for our living lives as well as the common sense, life-sustaining reasoning to make meta-physical value judgments.
It is by (physical) protection of (meta-physical) respect for the dignity of life itself we can know those judgments to be the truth of moral fact.
Hope to see you soon,
James
No comments:
Post a Comment