Science of Morality

[seer]

Well it would be nice if you would define intrinsic value for me then, because it seems that philosophers can't even come to agreement on a coherent explanation for the concept. So what do you mean by human beings having intrinsic value as compared to the housefly which you implied does not?

intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing .

So why would human being have intrinsic value? As opposed for instance a housefly?

[JimL]

intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing .

So why would human being have intrinsic value? As opposed for instance a housefly?

Actually seer, that was my question to you. You made the constrast between human beings and houseflies implying that the one, i.e. human beings, have intrinsic value, as opposed to houseflies which do not.

[seer]

Actually seer, that was my question to you. You made the constrast between human beings and houseflies implying that the one, i.e. human beings, have intrinsic value, as opposed to houseflies which do not.

I did not say that any creature had intrinsic value - that is what Tass said, and that all creatures have such value (including house flies).

[JimL]

I did not say that any creature had intrinsic value - that is what Tass said, and that all creatures have such value (including house flies).

I know you didn't say that, my point was that you implied just the opposite, i.e. that human beings have intrinsic value as compared to other creatures which do not. In other words your position is that intrinsic value is something that is only applicable to human beings. But you didn't define what you mean by intrinsic value.

[Tassman]

But that still does not equal intrinsic value Tass, it is subjective value however.

I did not say that any creature had intrinsic value - that is what Tass said, and that all creatures have such value (including house flies).

[seer]

I know you didn't say that, my point was that you implied just the opposite, i.e. that human beings have intrinsic value as compared to other creatures which do not. In other words your position is that intrinsic value is something that is only applicable to human beings. But you didn't define what you mean by intrinsic value.

Jim, I did not imply anything. I did not go there. And I defined intrinsic way back - even before I defined it for you.

[seer]

This makes no sense. We can value our fellow man without relying on an intrinsic characteristic. And just because valuing our fellow man helps survival does not mean that we have intrinsic value. In you model our value is dependent on what it helps to produce - survival. That is not intrinsic, it is utilitarian. See Tass, if human value really was intrinsic we would be valuable even if we did not further survival. Our value would not depend on what we produced.

[Tassman]

This makes no sense. We can value our fellow man without relying on an intrinsic characteristic.

And just because valuing our fellow man helps survival does not mean that we have intrinsic value. In you model our value is dependent on what it helps to produce - survival. That is not intrinsic, it is utilitarian. See Tass, if human value really was intrinsic we would be valuable even if we did not further survival. Our value would not depend on what we produced.

[seer]

Then human value it is not intrinsic Tass. Intrinsic means it has a quality in and of itself, that is the very definition. Our value would not depend on what we "facilitate," or not. Well I'm glad we settled that!

[Tassman]

Then human value it is not intrinsic Tass. Intrinsic means it has a quality in and of itself, that is the very definition. Our value would not depend on what we "facilitate," or not. Well I'm glad we settled that!

Sigh! I didn't said it was, seer, I said that the 'survival instinct' was intrinsic not "human value". Although, that said, we value our fellow man as a direct consequence of the survival instinct because our survival as a social species depends upon it.

[JimL]

Jim, I did not imply anything. I did not go there. And I defined intrinsic way back - even before I defined it for you.

You defined intrinsic, not intrinsic value which you apply to humans as opposed to other animals. I think what you actually mean is intrinsic quality, as value itself is not intrinsic. Value is what worth, what good, or what usefulness one thing has to something else. In other words you are refering to the value that you believe human beings have in the eyes of god as opposed to other animals. But of course if god doesn't exist, then you have no more value to god than does the common housefly.

[seer]

Sigh! I didn't said it was, seer, I said that the 'survival instinct' was intrinsic not "human value". Although, that said, we value our fellow man as a direct consequence of the survival instinct because our survival as a social species depends upon it.

Yes you did Tass, you said:

[Tassman]

Yes you did Tass, you said:

My exact words in #311, begin with the bolded (which I repeated from #309):

[seer]

My exact words in #311, begin with the bolded (which I repeated from #309):

Tass, I can't believe how you are fibbing here, in post 301 you said nothing about "survival instinct." You did not bring that up until I called you on the intrinsic value thing. Here is your original post in context:

[Tassman]

Tass, I can't believe how you are fibbing here, in post 301 you said nothing about "survival instinct." You did not bring that up until I called you on the intrinsic value thing. Here is your original post in context:

actually saying as opposed to what you think