Professional tyranny

[sthitapragya]

Seriously(-ish), if life itself confers value then that's intrinsic, isn't it? If that's the case then everything has value because we exist within nested and overlapping systems - Earth, Sun, Moon, other planets that help stabilise and protect us. Habitability issues no doubt extend to galactic scale, at least. All has value - to life.

Reality's systemic connections - along with the universe continually becoming more complex and, presumably, sentient - would seem to confer value to all things.

That is only if life itself really has value. We definitely give it value from our perspective. How would things be different if there were no life? We would be another planet like Mars or Mercury or Neptune, floating about in space completely lifeless but complete nonetheless. You could say life has value only if you could say that the earth has more value than Mars or Jupiter just because it has life and Mars or Jupiter do not.

[Walker]

"A terrorist knows the value of human life"

No...the terrorist, being human, being an 'I', knows the human individual 'values' (him- or her-self, loved ones, things, etc.)...the 'terror' comes from the threat of loss of that which the individual values, not because that which is valued has inherent or unversal or absolute value.

Hello Henry. Consider this.

In order to exist, a human being must exist as a greater organizational complex than a worm, or other lesser form of life. “Lesser” is not an arbitrary or assigned value. It is recognized. On this basis we can say that one life is a greater form of life when compared to another form. The basis of this greater or lesser is intrinsic to the form, not the comparison, and not the assignation by man. The intrinsic quality that is recognized and not assigned, though it is labeled, is the intrinsic ordering of the compounds which comprise the compounded thing.

Order is of value and that is intrinsic, which does not require man. The value of anything is recognized by man and for good reason. It allows man to persevere as a form of life within reality for the purpose of propagating and preserving the species, rather than existing for one generation in an imaginary world that exists only as a figment.

On a related philosophical note, light does not exist because of darkness. Darkness does not exist because of light. The concepts of light and dark may depend upon one another for existence in mind, but light and dark themselves have no need of concept, or each other. Each is complete in and of itself and exists without the other. If they simultaneously exist, then one of them is a figment.

[Greta]

Seriously(-ish), if life itself confers value then that's intrinsic, isn't it? If that's the case then everything has value because we exist within nested and overlapping systems - Earth, Sun, Moon, other planets that help stabilise and protect us. Habitability issues no doubt extend to galactic scale, at least. All has value - to life.

Reality's systemic connections - along with the universe continually becoming more complex and, presumably, sentient - would seem to confer value to all things.

That is only if life itself really has value. We definitely give it value from our perspective. How would things be different if there were no life? We would be another planet like Mars or Mercury or Neptune, floating about in space completely lifeless but complete nonetheless. You could say life has value only if you could say that the earth has more value than Mars or Jupiter just because it has life and Mars or Jupiter do not.

Biological life seems to confer value to those things that sustain it - and that is everything. The universe is full of living non-biological systems and the evidence suggests that biology is inevitable under certain conditions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElMqwgkXguw - it's long so, if in a hurry, you can get some especially relevant material from about the 30 min mark.

So I feel your hypothetical is not possible. If there is no biology around then it's only a temporary pre-biology state, as was the case with the state of universe before biology appeared.

[Walker]

Also Henry, et al:

Also consider that even rocks and minerals vary in ordering complexity. This ordering can be discovered by man but is not assigned by man. The greater the ordering, the greater the complexity, and the greater the intrinsic value. For example, diamonds are a highly ordered form of carbon, and this intrinsic value is recognized by man. The value and the order is not not assigned by man, for it intrinsically exists when man does not, as inference tells us. Diamonds are not valuable because they are rare although they may be rare. The are valuable because their intrinsic ordering is recognized. And perhaps, we can also say that they are rare because they are intrinsically valuable, or highly ordered.

The human brain looking upon one of its kind says, this is the most complex ordering in the known universe. This is the most valuable for that reason, and perhaps the most rare.

[henry quirk]

"if life itself confers value then that's intrinsic, isn't it?"

Well, 'valuing' is intrinsic...the capacity to value is intrinsic (to a particular, peculiar, kind of life), but what and why any one values is subjective...there are commonalities, of course...vegtax and me, despite our (insurmountable) differences, both value food, water, shelter, but commonality is not synonymous with intrinsic.

Seems to me: an intrinsic value is one that exists and remains the same across all circumstances, independent of observers, assessers, valuers. I can't think of anything that comes close to that...that is: the value of anything is determined by the valuer alone, not the thing that is valued.

[Walker]

Perception of intrinsic value may be corrupted.

[henry quirk]

Mebbe, if there is such a thing...not convinced there is...in fact, pretty damned sure there isn't.

[sthitapragya]

Seriously(-ish), if life itself confers value then that's intrinsic, isn't it? If that's the case then everything has value because we exist within nested and overlapping systems - Earth, Sun, Moon, other planets that help stabilise and protect us. Habitability issues no doubt extend to galactic scale, at least. All has value - to life.

Reality's systemic connections - along with the universe continually becoming more complex and, presumably, sentient - would seem to confer value to all things.

That is only if life itself really has value. We definitely give it value from our perspective. How would things be different if there were no life? We would be another planet like Mars or Mercury or Neptune, floating about in space completely lifeless but complete nonetheless. You could say life has value only if you could say that the earth has more value than Mars or Jupiter just because it has life and Mars or Jupiter do not.

Biological life seems to confer value to those things that sustain it - and that is everything. The universe is full of living non-biological systems and the evidence suggests that biology is inevitable under certain conditions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElMqwgkXguw - it's long so, if in a hurry, you can get some especially relevant material from about the 30 min mark.

So I feel your hypothetical is not possible. If there is no biology around then it's only a temporary pre-biology state, as was the case with the state of universe before biology appeared.

Shouldn't intrinsic value be independent of biological life too?

[henry quirk]

And: recognizing relationship (lesser/greater, smaller/larger, simple/complex, etc.) is not recognizing value...value is what the valuer brings to those relationships...and: relative status/condition itself is wholly dependent on the perspective (literally where one stands in relation to sumthin') of the observer/assessor.

[Walker]

Mebbe, if there is such a thing...not convinced there is...in fact, pretty damned sure there isn't.

That was dp's response to his lecturer.

[henry quirk]

Okay...not seein' that havin' any bearing on my position...*shrug*

[Walker]

Okay...not seein' that havin' any bearing on my position...*shrug*

Hey Henry. It was just a side note.

dp desired an explanation of the topic. He didn’t get one.

You did.

However, you and dp both had the same response.

Rationally, what is the commonality that caused the same response under differing circumstances?

Looking at something from the other direction can reveal hidden answers, like when you're taking the road back home and see something that was hidden by a hedge the first time. In the case of the OP, the other direction is to assume veracity of the lecturer’s proclamation on the basis of faith. Then, support that veracity oneself through logic and see if it passes the smell test. It is a method of applying rationality.

[A_Seagull]

People like to believe that they are special, heave a unique relationship to God, have intrinsic value etc etc.

And people, being the smart creatures that they are, come up with all manner of arguments to justify this specialness.

[Greta]

That is only if life itself really has value. We definitely give it value from our perspective. How would things be different if there were no life? We would be another planet like Mars or Mercury or Neptune, floating about in space completely lifeless but complete nonetheless. You could say life has value only if you could say that the earth has more value than Mars or Jupiter just because it has life and Mars or Jupiter do not.

Biological life seems to confer value to those things that sustain it - and that is everything. The universe is full of living non-biological systems and the evidence suggests that biology is inevitable under certain conditions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElMqwgkXguw - it's long so, if in a hurry, you can get some especially relevant material from about the 30 min mark.

So I feel your hypothetical is not possible. If there is no biology around then it's only a temporary pre-biology state, as was the case with the state of universe before biology appeared.

Shouldn't intrinsic value be independent of biological life too?

I was struggling to answer and couldn't work out why. It's because the notion of "independent of biological life" only exists in limited, local ways but not as regards the universe/reality. Biological life exists and everything in reality is ultimately is connected. If, at any time, the universe is free of biology, then that would only be a lull between instances of abiogenesis.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Shouldn't intrinsic value be independent of biological life too?

No values, extrinsic or extrinsic can be said to be independent. Values, are by their very nature relative, and subjective.

If you don't get what I mean, give an example of an 'intrinsic value" and I'' show you how it is relative.