Do individuals in society really value human life as we once did?

[John-in-KC]

Humanity has much to answer for to God.

 

Slavery. Women as chattel. Wars because we can and could. Lebensraum. Your race is worth your dying for.

 

Even so, at the level of Joe Citizen, do we really value human life as we once did? Is the concept of morals by government without absolute points in bedrock (law from God) really working?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I don't know of any government that claims to rule in their god's stead that's not horrific.

[packsaddle]

OK, I promised to respond over in the parent thread.

I have pondered this question for decades. If I had to put the problem into scientific terms, I'd construct a null in which people have not changed much in, say, the last 100 years. At least with respect to their basic urges and inclinations.

Today, given the huge variation I've observed during the last 50 years, I'd had to say that I have no evidence to reject the null.

 

What HAS changed is our ability to learn about the really nasty things we do to each other and the fact that when I entered the scene there were fewer than 3 billion people on earth, closer to 2 billion, and today we've breezed past 6, headed to 12 in a few short years. Any consideration of hypothetical changes must be normalized to account for population densities.

 

But personally, in my life, I actually think things are much better today than they ever were. The advances in our understanding of neurobiology, psychology, behavior, learning, etc. are vastly improved where they were sometimes nonexistent. Technologies give society so many more tools to solve problems. Awareness and rational responses to problems are much more possible today than they ever were. Not that we elect to employ them consistently but at least we have no excuse today, not to use them.

 

I acknowledge that, as Merlyn implies, some societies continue practices that I disagree with very strongly, usually involving violence of some sort. It is probably a separate argument over how much this relates to religion. I note that Dawkins makes persuasive arguments on that topic.

This, I think, has not changed though. We merely have more immediate access to that information, and in that technological improvement lies the potential to change those sad situations.

In some societies people like Merlyn and I would probably have very short life spans. Even in our own society today, we enjoy much greater ability to air our views now than would have been the case, say, 50 years ago.

So my answer is, yes, I see life valued possibly even more than before.

[LongHaul]

Let's clarify terms. Are we talking about valuing one's own life or that of the other 6 soon to be 12 billion?

LongHaul

[packsaddle]

That would be human life (the six to twelve billion) valued by society in general. I doubt that my own sense of value has changed much over the years.

[Trevorum]

The question would seem to be best answered by historians, who look human culture over the span of centuries and millenia. I would venture to guess that most historians would assert than human life and dignity are more highly valued now that at any previous time. Three points:

 

1. Slavery, once common, has been nearly eradicated worldwide.

 

2. Suffrage is nearly universal in many nations.

 

3. Capital punishment is outlawed everywhere (except the US, Iran, Korea, and China)

[SWScouter]

Trevorum,

 

Interesting. So you're saying that there are no countries in the middle East or Africa with capital punishment? Perhaps we should substitute tribes for countries too. I don't know the validity of your assertion, but I find it suprising.

 

SWScouter

[TheScout]

"Currently, 89 countries have abolished capital punishment for all offences, 10 for all offences except under special circumstances, and 30 others have not used it for at least 10 years. A total of 68 countries retain it."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distribution_of_death_penalty

[Trevorum]

oops, I was wrong on that point. I apologize for not checking my facts first!

 

I believe the larger point is still valid, nonetheless.

 

Moreover, (and this is a separate issue, but is raised above by JohnKC) I believe that most of the governments the world has seen that have been religiously based have had a far worse record on valuing human life than sectarian governments. This is not to say that the religious values are at fault, just that religion and political power don't seem to mix very well. Sooner or later, the "God is on our side" mantra always seems to validate violence against the non-believers.

[TheScout]

That seems like a tough assertion to make that religous "based" governments have a worse record concerning the value of human life than secular ones.

 

First of all, it seems to be a rather one sided argument. Most governments throughout history have been "based" on religion in some way or another. It is probably only in the last 200 years, and the last century in particular where we have seen the spread of true secular states. That being said, looking at the history of the 20th century it seems possible that secular state value human life as least as little as religious "based" ones.

 

 

[Beavah]

I'm at the same place where Trevorum is.

 

I think by and large we as a people are *slowly* coming to value human life more and more. Yah, sure, there's plenty of badness we can point to, but I think there's overall progress. Slavery, torture, debt imprisonment, capital punishment, all on the wane - in fact, it's noteworthy when it does show up somewhere in the world.

 

I think that's because of religion, though. It was those religious folks who started schools and universities by and large, and placed a high value on preservin' and passing along knowledge. It was those religious folks over the years who challenged governments on behalf of the less fortunate. Beckett who bearded Henry II, More who challenged Henry VIII and on and on. And the governments of Stalin and Mao and others who actively suppressed religion illustrated what fruits that route yields.

 

In our own nation, it was religious principle that declared that men are Created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights, and so because of God's endowment government can be justly opposed. It was religious "zealots" who lit and then fanned the flames against slavery ultimately leading to its abolition, and religious leaders and churches who led later efforts for civil rights.

 

Even today, it isn't secular governments that demonstrate true compassion for life. More than half of the AIDS patients in Africa are under the care of religious folks, nearly a third under the care of the Catholic church alone. The "enlightened democracies" of the secular west and the tribal despots they prop up as often as not don't come close to the true compassion for the poor shown by those of faith.

 

Yah, sure, religious folks commit their sins, too. We can all point to folks who put a religious justification on every kind of nationalistic or tribal or economic wickedness. Islam in particular seems caught up in that these days.

 

But I think, in fits and starts, we're makin' progress.

 

And like as not it's due to folks who for religious reasons care about the choices they make, and do their best to love God with all their heart, and love their neighbor as themselves. The story of the last 2 to 4 thousand years has been the story of those simple ideas slowly defeatin' all others.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

I have similar thoughts to Beavah and Trevorum but personally, I wouldn't credit religion itself either way. Rather, I think that the arena of faith is one that sometimes provides a refuge for persons who don't want to exercise rational thought. Prejudice of any kind is simply the easy way to go whether based on race, religion, nationality, political view, or anything else. And this can be found in any environment where people exercise blind faith, including 'secular' environments such as cults or certain totalitarian regimes. Human weaknesses don't automatically arise from the supernatural or belief in the supernatural.

 

The one thing I do wonder about, and I strongly question the students regarding this - is how much our empathy, or sympathy, (expressed as aid or other assistance) depends on relatively cheap energy. The ability to communicate needs and solutions, transport food and materials, manufacture goods and medicines, respond to needs and disasters, all depend on energy. As the cost increases (read: population increases while energy supplies flatten or diminish), I wonder how much such future concern and help we will choose to afford for our fellow human beings. I try to sober my students by noting that they ARE going to live long enough to see the answer to such questions, for better or worse. Is this progress merely a luxury, easily afforded while we enjoy all the other luxuries of cheap energy? Is the progress merely an unexpected expression of conspicuous consumption? I wonder.

I occasionally enjoy relieving some of them of that cocky youthful swagger.

[SR540Beaver]

Can anyone provide a single scripture from the Bible that condemns slavery?

[Beavah]

Can anyone provide a single scripture from the Bible that condemns slavery?

 

Luke 10: 27-37

 

Romans 13: 8-10

 

Galatians 5: 1

 

James 2: 8-10

 

Leviticus 19: 33-34

 

All of Exodus

 

 

[John-in-KC]

Amazing what sitting back and watching everyone post, coupled with watching the young staffers work out at Scout Camp, and further coupled with two EBORs, will do for a guy's attitude.

 

Thanks thus far for taking the time to comment. You got me past a blue moment, when Columbine and Virginia Tech and assorted other horrors of American life were getting to me.