Saturday, October 4, 2008

My thoughts on the value of life

Related to last week's post on the blurring line between animal and human, I thought I'd put up my thoughts on how life should be valued. This is from a conversation with Brian (Paladin, commenter on my post some people scare me) a few weeks ago over on Paul's blog, where he accused pro-choice people of all kinds of nastiness, and put up all kinds of mistaken ideas about why pro-choice people act the way they do. The post is called "Choice still means abortion". (Not to say that SOME pro-choice people act in ways Paul describes, but the implication was we should all be tarred with the same brush). He seemed to think that everyone knows he's right, they just deny it because they would like to keep their "murderous" lifestyle out of materialistic selfishness (children are inconvenient, and we like our flat-screen TVs).

Anyway, I felt I had to step in and correct some of the misconceptions expressed there, and in the process I ended up explaining how I value different kinds of life. Thought it might be interesting to get people's thoughts and reactions on it. Here you go.

Me:
I just ask that where possible people broaden their idea of what might be valuable, and don't abort without a REALLY good reason.


Brian:
Just to play devil's advocate: why not?


Me (Context: Brian had said above that I was basing my answers on subjective emotion, and that just wouldn't do if I wanted to take a firm position against anything):
My conscience tells me that doing so is objectively wrong. You may call it subjective if you like, but I do not view it so.


Brian then went on to talk about various trivial reasons why one could have an abortion, up to and including the desire to look good in a bathing suit, which apparently was one person's reason (according to a court case he found). And then said:

Are you suggesting that abortion for such trivial reasons would be wrong?


Me:

Yes. My position is this:

1. Harming any form of life unnecessarily is wrong. (Life should be respected wherever possible).

2. Different forms of life have different intrinsic values, based on level of consciousness, and harming higher-value life is wrong to a greater degree than lower value life. Which is what makes it morally acceptable to eat vegetables in order to stay alive, and potentially meat animals as well, although the more I learn about them the more I think I should be a vegetarian. But destroying plants for no reason is wrong, but not as wrong as killing animals or humans for no reason.

3. The degree to which harming life is wrong scales not just with the intrinsic value of the life involved, but also with the level of harm involved. So, subjecting myself to harm to save an animal's life would be ethically right in general, depending on the level of harm involved. By the same principle, if killing of any form of life is required, killing slowly and painfully is more wrong than quickly and painlessly.

4. Another factor is the potential for growth into a higher form of life. So, for example, a human zygote would be of greater value than a fish zygote.

5. To me, it seems that a human zygote, although it has a potential to become a higher form of life, is a relatively low form of life, and therefore abortion should not be termed murder. Without a detailed knowledge of biology, I cannot attempt to place an exact value on it, so my position is to avoid abortion wherever possible.

6. Killing is simply one of the most extreme forms of harm, to be factored into the overall wrongness of the act. In extreme cases, known harm to human beings can be used to justify the killing human zygotes, and potentially relatively undeveloped human fetuses. If the harm to a confirmed human being is extreme (the mother's life is at risk, for example) the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus, unless she indicates that she would prefer otherwise.

What I'm saying is, abortion isn't "right" in my view, as it does involve killing life. But there are isolated times when it can be less wrong than the alternatives, and therefore in a sense the right choice.

I know, it seems like I've made up a complicated value system to determine right from wrong. But please keep in mind I've done so based on my conscience which I believe to be reliable, and to me the Church's value system seems just as made up, but is not as much in accord with my conscience. In fact, whenever I've gone into a church, belief in the simplified model of God they have presented seemed very much wrong, which is why I've always left.


Thoughts?

11 comments:

Sarah said...

So I'm doing a little reading tonight on your blog, and this is the first post I'm reading. So granted, I'm quite a newbie and haven't gotten a real flavor for your personal views more than this one post...but I'm curious about your last comment about the "simplified view of God" that you experienced at churches. Would you be willing to clarify that for me? What exactly it was that you experienced there that caused you to walk away?

And I agree with your concern for the value of life- my one question to you is WHY? I've thought a lot about this myself- WHY is it that life is so precious that we would say that taking it is wrong? Because if we believe in evolution- aren't we just saying that we are here because of chance? That there's no real purpose to our existence?

Besides it just being 'morally wrong' to take a life- deeper than that- WHY??! And who decides what's morally right/wrong? Are we each left to our own devices on this issue or are there larger entities that make these moral decisions?

Sorry for all the questions! Again, just my random thoughts, but I'd be REALLY interested to hear what you, or any other reader have to say.

Myron said...

What exactly it was that you experienced there that caused you to walk away?

Hm... that's really tricky to answer. It's both a logical and a feeling thing. Logically, I just saw that everyone seemed SO sure of all of these various things they were saying (God loves us, we can talk to God, God gave MY church the right answers, human beings are special to God, human beings are all fundamentally sinners and the only way to get right is to ask forgiveness from God, etc, etc, etc). And my experience has been that the more certain you are that you're right, the more certain it is that you're wrong, because you've stopped listening and looking at the world around you. But people in church seemed to be so, so, so sure of themselves, and yet some of the things they said made sense, but some of them seemed pretty unlikely, and needed proof which nobody was willing to provide (because they were sure it was so).

And the second factor was feeling. I've been brought up to follow my conscience. And I also caught on pretty early that if you act in a certain way, your beliefs will change to match your actions. Like people who start out good and caring people, but do all kinds of nasty stuff, but mentally they don't want to feel like hypocrites, so they find ways to justify it to themselves, and that makes it OK to do more of the same. When I went into church, there was a strong peer pressure to act as if you believe in their particular vision of God. But I know if you act that way, you will eventually come to believe, because your mind wants your beliefs and your actions to match. Most people think of it as only going one way, in that your actions should match your beliefs. But once you've acted a certain way, you can't change that, but your beliefs can change. So your mind goes to work looking for ways your actions are justified, and that biases your view of the world. So for me I had a strong feeling that I shouldn't act like I believed everything the church was saying if that wasn't so, but there was a strong pressure to act differently. Basically, the church was pressuring me to lie. Maybe not in words, but in actions. So my conscience told me that wasn't a good place to be. I think if there's a God and that God wants me to go to a particular church, it shouldn't feel horribly wrong to go, it should feel right.

And I agree with your concern for the value of life- my one question to you is WHY? ... Besides it just being 'morally wrong' to take a life- deeper than that- WHY??!

If I get only one thing across to people, I want it to be this: Keep asking that question, in every area of your life.

Short answer: I think there is no short answer, but there probably is a very long one out there somewhere. And I know with reasonable certainty that valuing life is the right way to go, and about 99% of the population of the world agrees with me, so until I have a fully rigorous answer to why, I still have a guide to how I should act, and can keep asking why, and trying to understand things in greater depth than I did before.

Because if we believe in evolution- aren't we just saying that we are here because of chance? That there's no real purpose to our existence?

Why would that be so? You are assuming that evolution = chance. Evolution works in very definite, logical ways. Understand your environment, and do better at living within the laws of physics, and you live. Otherwise, life which figured things out better than you wins.

Ok, so it goes against the idea that God made the world in 6 days, and there was a garden of Eden and a snake and an apple that gave knowledge of good and evil. So it contradicts the Christian creation story, but how do you get from there to "If we believe in evolution life is purposeless"?

It comes back to asking why. Religions say "This is how the world was made, AND it's an answer to all of your questions that start with why". But evolution doesn't do that. There are still important questions it doesn't answer. Like:

Why does evolution work the way it does? Could physics have been set up other ways so that the result was different?
Where is evolution going? Sure, we got to here with it, but evolution hasn't stopped. So... what does the future hold?
Evolution started with self-reproducing life. But how did THAT start? Is there something special about life, that makes a living thing different from a very complex rock?
Evolution works by physics. But... why does physics work the way it does? Is there a point that's trying to be made about how we should act, and what we should do?
In the end, evolution is a result of physics, but what is physics a result of? Where did it come from?

Answer those questions, and you have your purpose in life. Evolution doesn't give you the answers, but it doesn't say there aren't any answers, either. You can (and I think should) keep asking.

As for "who decides what's morally right and wrong", my answer is: whoever or whatever decided to set up the laws of nature the way they are. Maybe nothing did, in which case nothing is really right or wrong. But maybe something did, in which case there is a right and wrong. And I think, given how well everything fits together and works together, that there very well could be an objective right and wrong. And the more we understand about nature, the more we will understand about where everything is going, and how whatever set up nature the way it is wants things to be.

What I find very interesting is that no matter what angle you look at things from, whether you start from "God made the world and gave us the rules" or "Physics is all there is to the world, and we need to derive our rules for behaviour from that", the conclusions about how you should behave for health, success, happiness and a growing and prosperous society in balance with the rest of the world, are the same. Whether you say "If we follow the laws God set down, it's good for us" or, as evolutionary biologists are finding now, "moral goodness is ingrained into us because it is advantageous by natural selection", you're saying the same thing, from different angles. And that thing is, being good is good for you. To me, the fact that you can reach that conclusion no matter how you answer the question "But why does life have meaning?" means that if there is a God out there, there are definite ways it wants us to act. I'm going to live by that, and do what I can to deal with the whys in the meantime. What I hope to do with this site is help other people to see that no matter which angle you come at things from, we're all on the same side when it comes to how we should live.

paladin said...

Hi again, Myron!

Sorry I've been so quiet, lately; "real life" has attacked me with dizzying ferocity, busy-ness, frenzy, and any other descriptor denoting "running around like a headless foul"... :)

Interesting questions, re: the "underpinnings" of evolution. Sarah (and nice to meet you, BTW, Sarah! :) ) brings up the question, "Because if we believe in evolution- aren't we just saying that we are here because of chance? That there's no real purpose to our existence?"

This might be a time to clarify terms... because, given the common usage of "evolution" in use by its modern proponents (didn't you coin the phrase, "Modern Theory of Evolution--MTOE"?), she's quite right. If one thinks that "evolution means that there's no need for God, so Ockham's Razor eliminates that silly 'God theory'" (which is a complete misunderstanding of Br. William of Ockham's position, BTW), then we came into existence by sheer chance.

I suppose this might be an opening for the "proof of the existence of God" discussion... :)

I'll warn you, though... it's long, detailed, and I make no pretense about being brilliant at it. But I suspect that I can prove it sufficiently... and if so, that has direct implications on our lives (i.e. it's not just a philosophical bauble, or nicety).

In Christ,
Brian

Myron said...

This might be a time to clarify terms... because, given the common usage of "evolution" in use by its modern proponents (didn't you coin the phrase, "Modern Theory of Evolution--MTOE"?), she's quite right. If one thinks that "evolution means that there's no need for God, so Ockham's Razor eliminates that silly 'God theory'" (which is a complete misunderstanding of Br. William of Ockham's position, BTW), then we came into existence by sheer chance.

Well... some people do use evolution to "justify" a Godless existence. I think this is mainly a result of their biases, though, which shouldn't taint the idea of evolution.

Also, if you're strict enough about your science, and say EVERYTHING came into existence by those laws, then there is a position (determinism) which says there is no such thing as chance. So we evolved how we were meant to evolve (in a worldview where God exists). It comes down to your opinion of where the laws of physics came from. If you figure something made them the way they are, then that something is responsible for why we are the way we are, whether the mechanism of its action is evolution or miraculous divine intervention. On the other hand, if you are inclined to believe God doesn't exist and everything is random, the whole universe exists and physics are the way they are purely by chance, well then yes evolution would be Godless. But either way, you have to presuppose either the existence or absence of God, and evolution is neither a help nor a hinderance to that presupposition. It does rather do a number on those who would like to take the Christian creation story 100% literally, though.

As for proving God exists, someone who was quite good at it has already given it a shot, and I WILL send you the transcript of that conversation to work from, and then if you have more to add we can go from there.

paladin said...

As for proving God exists, someone who was quite good at it has already given it a shot, and I WILL send you the transcript of that conversation to work from, and then if you have more to add we can go from there.

:) Sure, why not? I can't promise an immediate reply, but I'm always game to wrestle with the big questions...

BTW: If you can grant me the supposition that "change exists in our universe", then I think I can sufficiently prove the existence of an uncaused cause of all contingent existence that is eternal (i.e. beyond space and time), one (i.e. not multiple causes), unlimited, and identical with existence itself. I can't prove that such a thing is "personal" (i.e. has intellect and will), but--one thing at a time. :)

Myron said...

BTW: If you can grant me the supposition that "change exists in our universe", then I think I can sufficiently prove the existence of an uncaused cause of all contingent existence that is eternal (i.e. beyond space and time), one (i.e. not multiple causes), unlimited, and identical with existence itself. I can't prove that such a thing is "personal" (i.e. has intellect and will), but--one thing at a time. :)

Hm. That's a lot of terms we should make sure we define before you embark on your proof (some for my benefit, and some to clarify for anyone else who might be reading).

First: "Change exists in our universe". Is the universe being a static 4-dimensional object where things appear to change over time sufficient, or does the future have to be not predetermined? I'll grant you either one for the sake of letting you make your argument, because I can't tell which one is true, but I personally think a static 4-dimensional universe is prettier. Also, by "In the universe" do you mean our universe since the big bang, or existence more broadly? Just want to check, since "the universe" is often treated as synonymous with "everything", when for the purposes of our discussion it shouldn't be.

By "Contingent existence", you mean the existence we live in, where everything has a cause, right?

"Identical with existence itself" is an interesting phrase. I'm not quite sure what you mean by existence here. In the most broadly based definition of existence, what you're saying is that God is EVERYTHING. Saying that and that God also caused everything we see around us is tricky, because in a sense by causing the universe God caused a part of itself.

So, based on that... not sure if we need to clarify what you mean by "and identical with existence"?

I'd be interested in your proof, but I've gotten pretty close to that point anyway - God existing but not being personal. So, go ahead, present your proof. If you'd like to e-mail it to me, I can make it a blog post and we can discuss in the comments, or we can just do it here.

paladin said...

>> BTW: If you can grant me the supposition that "change exists
>> in our universe", then I think I can sufficiently prove the
>> existence of an uncaused cause of all contingent existence
>> that is eternal (i.e. beyond space and time), one (i.e. not
>> multiple causes), unlimited, and identical with existence
>> itself. I can't prove that such a thing is "personal"
>> (i.e. has intellect and will), but--one thing at a time. :)

> Hm. That's a lot of terms we should make sure we define
> before you embark on your proof (some for my benefit,
> and some to clarify for anyone else who might be reading).

:) Touche!

I'll e-mail you the "proof" in MS Word format, but here are a few definitions, and responses to your initial questions:


"existence" = that which "is" (as opposed to that which is not); that which holds ontological (i.e. not simply conceptual or phantasmal), objective (i.e. not dependent upon the perceptions of others) reality.

By "conceptual" reality, I mean the "existence" of numbers (like 3, pi, etc.)--which are certainly true, but only as abstractions from ontological (i.e. "objective and substantive") reality.

By "phantasmal" reality, I mean the images of imagination or memory--which might well reflect a true object, but only as a sort of "copy" of the ontologically existing original.

You wrote:

> "Change exists in our universe". Is the universe being a
> static 4-dimensional object where things appear to change
> over time sufficient, or does the future have to be not
> predetermined?

Let me separate those, since I'm not sure it's valid to put "static 4-D" and "predetermination" in opposition to one another.

It's true that an unchanging 4-D object would "appear" to exhibit change to an observer limited to 3-D... but that would necessitate a 3-D observer capable of *movement*, which begs the original question. Think of a lower case (borrowed from Edwin Abbott's "Flatland"), in which a 2-D observer could never see more than a "slice" of a 3-D object at any given time--and in which a moving 3-D object [say, an apple] would seem actually to "change shape" to the 2-D observer; likewise, a 1-D observer, if he/she were to watch a 2-D object [say, an isosceles triangle] move through his/her "1-D field of vision", he/she would watch the object "change in size" from a point (as the vertex hits his/her field of vision) to ever-increasing line segments, and then to nothing (as the triangle moves out of his/her field of vision). But do note that all of these require *movement*, even within a "world" where the shapes of these objects remain constant.

As for "predetermination", that raises another issue (which many atheist philosophers have bungled, rather badly--I think especially of Charles Hartshorne's "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes"): "predetermined" has nothing especially to do with anyone's prior knowledge of "final outcomes", so long as that "anyone" is beyond space and time. Long story--I'll cover that later, if you wish.

In short: any movement from potentiality to actuality (or vice versa) in any venue or domain will serve as an adequate instance of "change".

> Also, by "In the universe" do you mean our universe
> since the big bang, or existence more broadly?

Assuming for a moment that the "Big Bang" theory is correct (and, mind you, I'm not at all saying with certainty that it *isn't*!), I was referring to any instance of change in any domain (observable universe, or beyond) whatsoever.

> By "Contingent existence", you mean the existence we
> live in, where everything has a cause, right?

By "contingent", I mean anything which depends on an extrinsic (i.e. outside of itself) cause for its ontological existence, yes. (I admit to being curious about your wording; it almost seems to imply that there might be another existence--apart from that in which we live--where contingency isn't a factor?)

> "Identical with existence itself" is an interesting
> phrase. I'm not quite sure what you mean by existence
> here. In the most broadly based definition of existence,
> what you're saying is that God is EVERYTHING.

That's not what I meant, in this case (that would be called "pantheism", which the Church rejects as heresy [and sane reason rejects as nonsense]--just as a point of trivia). I'm observing a classical distinction between "essence" (WHAT a thing is) and "existence" (the fact THAT a thing is). Something needs to exist in order to have attributes; something needs to exist in order to have an essence. So when I say that God is identical to existence itself, I do not mean that God is identical to ESSENCE itself (i.e. that God simultaneously has blonde hair, brown hair, fur, blue eyes, an atomic number of 24, a temperature of 100K, etc.). I'll try to explain that further, when we get there.

> Saying that and that God also caused everything we see
> around us is tricky, because in a sense by causing the
> universe God caused a part of itself.

Either that, or God would have to "be" the universe, and would never have "caused" anything; right. That (among other things) is why the idea doesn't work.

> I'd be interested in your proof, but I've gotten pretty
> close to that point anyway - God existing but not
> being personal.

One clarification: I do not claim that God is *not* personal (in fact, I know He *is*); but that idea is beyond this particular proof.

Whoops... gotta run, and do some work! Talk to you soon!

In Christ,
Brian

Myron said...

Phew! That's a lot to go through. But I can tell this is going to be fun! :)

As for "predetermination", that raises another issue (which many atheist philosophers have bungled, rather badly--I think especially of Charles Hartshorne's "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes"): "predetermined" has nothing especially to do with anyone's prior knowledge of "final outcomes", so long as that "anyone" is beyond space and time. Long story--I'll cover that later, if you wish.

I have no idea about any atheist, or non atheist philosophers. But... how can you consider the possibility of "prior" knowledge if the observer is beyond space and time? If you're beyond time, the word "prior" has no meaning in your context, except something like "slightly to the past" in the way we would say "slightly to the left". Either such an observer has a knowledge of the final outcome of the universe, or does not. There is no "at one point in time the universe was created, but prior to that time God had knowledge of what it would be", because God is beyond time.

Note, I didn't say that predetermination was in opposition to a static 4-dimensional model of the universe. If the 4-dimensional universe is static (and is only 4-dimensional, not 5th or higher-dimensional) then there is predetermination. If the 4 dimensional universe's shape changes, predetermination is wrong.

Think of a lower case (borrowed from Edwin Abbott's "Flatland")

You can read my post "What I think", which uses a similar analogy I came up with independently. Also, I discovered a series of videos and posted a link, which expand the flatland analogy and try to help people visualize 4-dimensional geometry. I didn't need the analogy, I get it already, but thanks, it might help the readers! What you're saying, though, is that our consciousness's movement through time (assuming we are in fact independent observers, and SOMETHING of us is moving through time, even if physically our future is predetermined) is sufficient movement for you to make your point? OK.

(I admit to being curious about your wording; it almost seems to imply that there might be another existence--apart from that in which we live--where contingency isn't a factor?)

If God isn't contingent (wasn't himself caused by something, and since he wasn't caused we avoid infinite regress) then God must exist in some sense, in a place where contingency isn't a factor. Because if contingency was a factor where God exists, God wouldn't be the first cause, now would he? :) So outside of our contingent existence, unless we assume infinite regress, there would have to be a non-contingency-dependent place. Although I don't know if "place" is the right word, and have no idea what that place might be like.

Interested in your existence / essence distinction, that's not one I'd heard before. Still not quite sure what you mean by "God is identical to existence itself", but I guess we'll get there when we get there. Looking forward to it!

Sarah said...

Hey you two :)
I just checked back here because I hadn't received notification that anyone had responded to my posts- and WOW- was I ever surprised! It's gonna take me a little while to read all that's been posted...but I'll be in touch.

Thanks for honestly addressing my questions and I'm looking forward to re-entering the discussion :)

Sarah

Sarah said...

has Brian gotten that "proof" out to you yet?

I think I'll wait till you post that to make my next comments- I feel like I've kinda gotten out of the conversation here- unless you want me to back way up and respond to your first comment on my comment Myron (I'd be happy to)? If not, I'll wait for the next post :)

Myron said...

You can do whatever you'd like - anything you'd like to comment on, I'll read and respond.

Brian has sent his proof to me (yesterday evening) but I haven't had a chance to read it yet (this week is busy, so I won't have time until the weekend).

But, since I've got it, I should publish it, I suppose. It will be up shortly.