New Mars Forums

LOL, well said, but a bit premature. 

What is the "value" of life? Quantify it. Life does have value, but that value only exsists to illustrate that all life is equal in relation to itself. My life, your life, Cindy's life- the value of each of our lives is intrinsicaly the same- no one has a more valuable life than another. However, this equality in value does not imbue any objective value- it only serves to prove that are inherent worth, whatever it may be, is always the same.

According to this definition, there is no possibility for artifical intelligence, and it would exclude virus's. Either way, what we shoulf focus on are the shared qualities of ALL life, not just a limited subset (witch is determined subjectively). If something is ALIVE, period, it is life. It therfore derives value. Otherwise, we allow for subjective determination in order to qualify life.

Your qualifications for life exclude Christopher Reeve by the way, and all like him. Is he therefore not life?

Ahh, but you see, now you are qualifying life- you are holding a type of life as having more value than another type of life. While I agree with the sentiment, it is derived through subjective values that not all people share- you have no objective way of determining the value of life in relation to other life because that value place between the different life-types is arbitrary. There are many people who hold that Cows are a life of equal value as human- prove them wrong. Either all life has the same value or it dosen't- if it dosen't, tell me how we objectively derive and place a value on everything.

No one needs to care- caring is a value and meaningless. You are applying a subjective value- that someone being able to witness the cycles of creation and destruction is better than no one witnessing the act. However, there were witness's- just not us.

No, life IS, WAS, and ALWAYS will have the same intrinsic value. When you add qualifiers you apply a value system which is subjective and arbitrary (oh lord I repeat myself soooo much.  :0  ) Nazi use to hold that certain people were less human based on certain qualifiers- you do the same thing to "life" by stating the intrinsic value is based on reason and intelligence.

A bit of a jump there don't you think? my stance is that society formed because groups are more succesful in competing for resources than a single individual. Society forms out of neccessity, not out of a common respect for one another.

Life has no objective meaning other than itself, which is to continue being alive. Any "meaning", such as progress is a value which is not objective. How does a flower look to "progress"? How do Amish people who only want a certain way of life "progress"? If we accept that life exsists to progress, that neccessarily mean that to not progress, or to regress is impossible- it would be a violation of self.

No, we are in subjective territory. And yes, this is the very act of human thinking. However, just cause we think so does not make it so.

All true, however there can be no objective values for life, no matter how we may look at it.

So you suggest that are ability to subjectivly experience life is what imbues human life with value? You also suggest that "feelings" or "consious thought" sets us apart from the rest of life- I believe animals feel, and I believe monkies are capable of displaying consious thought. You are qualifying the value- or the requirements for the "inherent" value of life. In doing so, you allow anyone to apply ANY qulifiers to what is neccessary for the "inherent" value of human life. Some may suggest that only certain skin colors are imbued with the "inherent" value of humanlife...

No, inherent implies that it is independant of US. The "value" dosen't exsist- only the equality of value between all life exsists. Even the act of claiming that only human life is equal to itself, but greater than other types of life is a value system (one I am guilty of agreeing with, but what do you do ).

Judges? Sorry, you're wrong.    Life does not have "value", it onyl has equality of value. If you say life is good, that means ALL life is good, and all non-life is bad. However, this is again a value system based on subjective critera- that life is good. Why is life good? Why is non-life bad? Is a rock bad? no. It is a thing, with no real value. We are a thing ( a moving breathing thinking thing), but a thing all the same- therfore we are the same as a rock, and have no definable value... other than that we are equal in value- whatever that may be.

I have never denied the benefits of subjective values, but I also temper it with the destruction caused by subjective values. The destructionis often caused becuase one set of people impose their subjective values on another set of people becuase they believe their values to be "good" and theirs to be "bad". But the good and bad do not objectively exsist, making such actions as mentioned illigitimate. I reject the rationaliztion of this behavior.

LOL...snit.  I truly enjoy hearing yours (and quite a few others) points of view.

the confusion is caused by the duality of my discussions- one is theoritcal, one is practical. Yes, the human is an imperfect being, but saying that dosen't make it any easier to live with them. However, understanding the human condition engenders respect for others points of view, which can only help with the practical day-to day living we must go through. I point out that are values are subjective, but that does not negate or detract from developing practical ways to deal with one another.

All true, and they don't need to be. We all have different value systems, so we utilize society to help us interact with each other and prevent each other from infringing on each others value system (liberty) too much.

No, we do not agree. Life has no absolute value. It has an absolute equality of value, applying good or bad to it is meaningless.

2+2=4 is as objective as it gets. Good implies a discernable value- please, tell me how you measure the relative "goodness" between various living things.

No, the end of life is an action- the value of which is derived by individual meaning.

No, any action that sustains life is just an action- with no real value, the same is true for anything that ends life.

A man is sentenced to death- that is bad for him. But the family he wronged feel it is good. Society feels it is good. But according to your argument, it can only be bad.

How about this: A man donates a kidney to his brother to save his life- which is good. But the operation takes his life- which is bad. A good act has resulted in a bad act. But the "good" and the "bad" are subjective depending on how we value the actions, how we perceive the situation, and who we are in the situation.

Simple, logical, RATIONALIZATION. I understand. 

So the assination of Bin Laden would be "bad"? If a military team is placed behind hostile lines and they kill, is that an act of self-defense or murder? They don't neccessarily need to be there... You see, it is all too subjective.

The violation occurs when ONE life is valued differently than another life. Murder is bad in and of itself becuase it is placing the value of your own life as greater than the value of another life- not because of the act of murder, but what the murder represents.

The action does not have an absolute value, otherwise we would all readily agree that all murder is wrong- but sometimes murder is justifiable, which means that murder can sometimes have different values. Absolute is 2+2=4, no one argues against it becuase to do so is to argue against reality. Even the act of violating the "equality of value" inherent in life is not "bad" or "good", it is an act whose value is determined by what it means and represents to us individualy.

It isn't bad becuase it has no inherent value what so ever. Even you allowed for murder in the case of self-defense, however, this is a rationalization based on your personal value system that allows for acceptable situations in which murder is "okay". Either murder is ALWAYS bad, or it is ALWAYS good. Absolute value means that an action, or a thing, has the same value always.

Actions, life life, have an equality of value- however, our subjective value systems apply diffrent values to the same actions in order to derive meaning for ourselves- it is the measn by which we understand actions and how they relate to us. But none of these human process's imbue action, or life itself, with an objective value.

Good post Byron, and your argument is convincing, however, it is flawed in its assumptions.

Sounds a bit arbitrary to me, but a worthwhile attempt.

I would imagine that the development of Mars, any "profit" go into funding UN sponsored programs only. As for who gets what and when. Lock up 3/4's (or whatever X number) of land in perpitutity, a portion of that land is released every 10, or 20 years- with currently unrepresented nations or groups having first "dibs" on getting access to the land before those who have already come to Mars- they get a chance after those who did not.

All permanent settlers must renounce any ties to terran governments and recognize the authority of a martian world council to settle/resolve disputes- this is the only price of admission to Mars. Only permanent settlers may own Martian land- all non-permanent settlers may only "lease". Works for the Swiss.

We have laws and groups that regulate and control the expression of speech, is that US being FORCED not to speak? If people are not free to decide for themselves weter or not they wish to speak, and in what manner, and regulationa and control are imposed on them, that is force- do you hold that the people in the US then do not have a right to free speech? Do you also further hold that the government is forcing us to not speak freely? That is what your argument implies if extrapolated.

Regulating a right is well within the bounds of society- it is the only way a society CAN function. Just becuase the moment you are allowed to conceive is regulated is not a denial of the right to reproduce. You'll have to do better than that.

If birth is regulated, that means there are those who will be waiting for the opportunity to reproduce- this regulation will only serve to increase the perceived value of children- it's not a simple act of having one. Therefore, I think I can logicaly assume that there should be quite a few people who would take the opportunity to raise the child.

We have people who do that now, I am certain a fair and equitable system can be developed.

Why should the parent be rewarded for disobeying the laws and endangering the rest of the community? Why allow that parent to corrupt their child with similar attitudes? ( a weak point, I will grant you)

Children can bond with anyone, and in my mind, the child would be removed from the care of their parents as soon as the offense is discovered.

Perhaps, but if everyone knows the rules, how can they be legitametly upset when they are punished for what they know is unacceptable? You would serve your argument better if you could demonstarte how this might somehow be unjust.

They shouldn't be able to- it acts as a deterrence for people so they are less likely to break the reproduction rules. Why have a child if it will be taken away from you? It would be senseless.

[Sigh] I never mentioned that there wouldn't be some form of recource to allow for accidental birth- I am merely addressing the issue of the legitmacy of controling and regulating reproduction in order to maintain a stable and viable martian base. How it is composed, what manner of checks and balances it has, what it's responsibilities are- all of this is a seperate issue to be decided later.

First you establish the rights and the boundaries- then you establish a means for equitable and fair treatment for all.

don't put the car before the horse, and don't put words into my mouth.

Let me apolgize formaly Cindy, I don't want you to take offense to anything I have said, or will say. It is not my intention to make you feel bad- sometimes there is a bit of communication failure due to the limitations to my ability to write, and the lack of spoken word to add the emphasis or tone to make the neccessary point. I'm sorry if I have offended you, and this apolgy applies to anyone else.

Becuase I have said that all values are subjective when evaluating an action, I also made it to point out that acknowledgin this fact does not negate my ability or desire to make judgements. It only serves to remind me that I am not God and that even my opinions are not abolute (but they should be )

Yes, they do- that is, no value what so ever.   However, I still hold my arguments make more sense then yours.

becuase it allows for the type of rationalization of behavior that you oppose (Nazi)- as I explained in the previous post. Everyone who has oppresed another people thought human life's value was not absolute- and we saw and live now with many of the results.

You are a poorer person for your opinion becuase it neccessarily reduces the value of your own life. The value of my life, and others, according to my opinion, is absolute- always, thus making my life worth more than yours in comparison (based on the differing views, no actual difference exsists)

You are kind of taking me out of context- I was discussing morality and ethics- viewpoints, beliefs- the interpertation of action. Even my view that all life has the same worth does not invalidate my argument that nothing has value- if all life has the same value, then it in effect has no value either- it is the same across the board. I hold that all life has value, that all human life is equal in value- that's not stating what the value IS, it is merely pointing out the obvious conclusion of Voltaire and enlightenment. You will lose this one Cindy.

No Cindy, I do understand, and I am willing to ACCEPT that a difference does exsist. What you fail to grasp is that this understanding, this acceptance is the result of rationalization based on our personal value system- my or your personal acceptance does not imbue it with any actual difference- becuase there is none- the difference is in our mind. If we had a different value system, we could very well view the actions of the Settler as "bad" and the actions of the uneducated as "good". That's my point. We cannot apply a value arbitrarily to an action. We cannot legitametly apply a value to human life- to do so is to imply that it can be objectively evaluated for it's worth- and that is impossible.

Yes, you have- by invoking the name of Voltaire and arguing that objective values for action exsist.

Is the value of human life absolute?
If the value of human life is not absolute, what is the value?
How is the value of human life determined objectively?
Who determines the value of human life?
If human life has no inherent value, where does it derive it's value?
Why must we respect the value of another human life?

Not everything need be a competition.... there are alternatives     

Thanks for the "pat on the back".

What would be the possibility of doing "walk a thons" for space exploration or Mars itself?

Every step we take brings us one step closer to Mars....

Generates PR and can be a grass-roots type activity.

If need be, turn into a competion for farthest walked, most money earned, most support, etc.

LOL- There is no way to INCREASE the value of a life- the value is absolute- it is inherent and unchangable. You are the one suggesting that it has some slide rule value, which I cannot accept. Life either has an absolute value, or it dosen't. If it dosen't then the value assigned is arbitrary and subjective (remeber THAT discussion?) and renders the whole concept of respecting life as meaningless. So I ask you again to either establsish how the value of life can change, how it can be measured, and how it is determined... OBJECTIVELY. The only OBJECTIVE measure is to say that life is inherently valuable- it's an either/or.

Morality and ethics are not absolutes- and my personal values hold that the value of human life itself, irregardless of how I may feel about anybody personaly (because that is subjective), is the same for everyone. If you say it isn't, then how do you objectively determine what someone's worth is? It can't be done, so the only option is to either accept the inherent value of life, or reject it, rendering ANY value arbitrary and meaningless. I'm sorry you can't accept the inherent value of all human life- I think you are a poorer person for it.  ???

Not really, I am following your argument to it's logical conclusion. What I said is the end result of accepting your argument. How do we determine the value of any life if we hold that the value is not absolute? How do we do so objectively?

What are the ignorant uneducated people doing then? Are they not still making that final decision based on an "incident" (invasion by an enemy) and are they not still doing it alone- death is all about yourself afterall, when all is said and done.

Based on the situation she fouind herself in. Each of those uneducated people are doing the same thing. The only difference is you are able to RATIONALIZE one action as acceptable, and the other as not- you are RATIONALIZING becuase both are equal acts, both result in death- there is no difference between the acts other than what you "perceive" in your own mind- which is based on your personal value system.

She is led to believe that there willbe no escape from the pain. It dosen't matter if people are "following orders" to kill themseleves- they still choose to follow those orders- they are not forced to follow, which means their actions are EXACTLY equal to the Settler. It's you who refuse to see the arbitrary manner in which you have judged to equal actions.

Common sense implies everyone shares the same "sense". The fact that people have different views, and different course of action for the same problems demonstrates the fallacy in believing in "common sense". Common sense is subjective and meaningless.

No, I understand all to well, and I have seen so many missed opportunities on your part to prove some valid points. However, it is you who fail to address many of the fundamnetal problems with your argument- it is you who fails to demonstrate how what you say makes sense given the other issues raised by accepting your argument. I keep asking the same questions, but get no direct reply.

It dosen't apply becuase your personal will has been violated and will forever violated with complete certainty. It is in this case that you will not be killing yourself- that has already been done, it is only a matter of them getting around to the deed. An innocent man convicted and sentenced to death who kills himself is not commiting suicide, he is preventing others from having the opportunity to murder himself. He protects allof his rights by ending his tormenters ability to affect any of his rights. It is a justifiable and legitimate action that falls outside of the scope of this discussion.

Why should we put altruism up for sale?

Money will create "strings"- it unneccessarily complicates the issue of helping someone else in need. It establishes that we will help those with the money, first. Is that a value you like? Is that a value you want to live with?

Before deciding wheter or not you are for something, or agaist something, think about the what the world might be like- and think about if that is the world you would like to be a part of.

Going to Mars, what a wonderful world that could be.
Selling organs for a profit- profitering off others misfortune... a demonstration that we have not learned much from history.   ???

I understand your principle Phobos, but there are other principles at stake here.

It is a good idea to revise, however this does not resolve several outstanding issues:

1. How do you prevent the aquisition of all the rich areas of resources that would be most useful to any new settlement on Mars? If one nation buys all the available land that holds all the available water, you have instutited the means with which to establish an economic slavery over the inhabitants of Mars.

2. How do you prevent the exclusion of poorer, less developed nations from what is supposed to be equally theirs? There seems to be no means to "level the playing field" so all of humanity may benefit- not just the rich industrialized cultures and countries.

3. How do you propose to enforce anything once people are on Mars? Who will enforce the contracts? Why would anybody follow the rules?

4. Setting aside a percentage of land can be made meaningless. If the land is broken up into small parcels then all the land around it could be sold- you end up with a weird patch work of "free land" and leased land- the leased land would probably be larger intact tracts since they would fetch more money- the free land would be small and distributed, since it has no economic value. You need more than X amount of land-  what's to prevent all of the most suitable areas for colonization from being bought up?

I owuld suggest that any settlers who get to mars get whatever land they NEED- if it is already leased, then the group that leased it is compensated- Eminent Domain.

Well said Canth.

Again, how does their individual action diminish the value of their lives? They are alive, and what they choose to do is morally reprehensible, it does not somehow disqualify, or somehow reduce the inherent value of life. Either life has value which is absolute, or it dosen't. If life dosen't have an absolute value (as you are suggesting now), then there is no need to respect ANY life since any value would be arbitrary. This establishes that the WORTH of a life can be determined- measured. Can it?

YES! They are exactly the same. Both situations the people are taking their lives, the only difference is that you are willing to accept one reason for suicide but not another- you are using your PERSONAL value system to determine which one is acceptable and which one is not. You can't do that with your argument. Either the right to die is universal and unabridged, which means ANY reason that people want to die is justifiable, or it is not. YOU are the one that is stating that the right to die is universal and unabridged- YOU are the one who is in effect CONDONING the action of the "ignorant, brainwashed people". It's actually funny in a way.  ???

Actuially, I believe I did. I said I would hang myself as well- but in that instance you describe, I am being murdered anyway- me taking my own life is not an act of suicide, it is an act of murder on the part of those who would soon kill me. If my only option is death becuase SOMEONE else has put me in that situation, and not of my choosing, then it is murder on their part, not mine. I told you then, as I am telling you now, your example does not apply.

I honestly try to answer every question- as I thought I answered this one. I would tell her NO. Just becuase something is hard to say or do does not mean we shouldn't say or do it... I said this before... remember, Mars Argument predicated on this philosphy.... can I get a witness

No, I am talking about NOT legally allowing someone to murder themselves. Murder is an act against the State- the crime when prosecuted is always brought by the State. Murder is an affront to society. You are asking us to see the sense in codifying into law the right to murder oneself as an unalienable and protected right. This measn that police and paramedics would be REQUIRED by law to not interfere with anyone who is trying to kill themselves- in fact the police would be required to prevent anyone from interferring with this right. Imagine a world where police do crowd control while they wait for someone to jump- instead of trying to save them. That's the world you allow with this argument Cindy.

So now we go back to my previous point- drug laws, alcohol restrictions, prostution laws, food quality laws, saftey laws, standards for almost anything all go out the window. How is this sensible and logical?

Here is an example for you. We establish the "right to die at ones choosing"- A Parent has a child, which makes them executor of the child until they are 18. The child has a deformity of some sort- maybe a hair lip. The Parent, unable to afford the cost of "fixing" the cosmetic abnormality is worried that their child will have a horrible and painful life. Deciding not to put the child through such obvious agony, she has the child euthanized. All of which would be legal, since the parent is exercising the right of the child- as is the Parent's right. Your thoughts Cindy?

Wheter or not there should be a law which guareentes that you are able to exercise this right at anytime. I contend that no such law should be made.

No, I am in no way suggesting that they be MADE to suffer- I am simply stating that no one in their right mind chooses to die. If they do choose death, obviously something is "wrong" with them. If anything, I am suggesting we don't give up on people, and that people don't give up.

But even here there is no "right to die" being exercised. The only thing that is occuring is that life extending procedures are no longer being used to prolong the life. If your body is unable to support itself, then it is a natural death, and their is nothing wrong with that.

Have people submit the "best" fake picture of Mars. This could be a real place that looks like mars, a picture of mars that is doctored- the only rule is that it must not be a REAL picture, it must be modified in some way, or must be a complete forgary.

You could have categories: Best Faked picture, Best doctored picture, Most Outlandish, etc.

I thought it would be a good exercise if people started looking for the "mars" on earth- that in and of itself might be a worthwhile way to change people's perspective.

Find a picture, or whatever, that shows the SIMILARITIES that Earth and Mars share.

Just sitting outside the box...

First words on Mars Contest

Have people submit a brief statement that should be spoken by the first person on Mars.

First we argue about the rights of the dead body, now we argue over wheter or not the living body has the right to make themselves become the dead body...     :0      I find I am learning, what exactly, I'm not sure yet... 

Good point. So, if we accept this specfic reasoning, we neccessarily must recognize the inherent right over self. Society is without recourse in establishing drug laws- what right do you or anyone have in determining what I choose to ingest? You do away with age restrictions for alcohol becuase of the same reason. We must disolve the current practice whereby doctor perscriptions must be obtained for medication- no one has the right to allow or dissalow what I choose to put in my body...
All laws regarding saftey compliance must be disolved, after all, we cannot allow anyone to impose any rules that affect how I use my body- in this case, wheter or not I choose to wear a seat belt or wear a helmet. Since a child is the ward of their parent, we can no longer instutire laws that force saftey standards onto manufacturers of childs stuff- Society has no right.

Welcome to your lovely world of Buyer Beware.

Oh wait, I forgot about the USDA- so much for regulating the food we eat- after all, who are you or anyone else to tell me what kind of food I eat. MMMMM.... E coli.

Hey, no more flight saftey standards- who are you to tell me what kind of plane I can fly in.

Is this really the platform that you wish to advocate? Masturbation isn't rape, but this logic you advocate fails.

The taking of life is not a right we inherently posses, ever. It is the ONE right we have no claim to. Suicide is the taking of a life- even if it is at your own hands. Society exsists to protect life and ensure rights. How can you have a right that is diametricaly opposed to the very thing [society] which ensures your rights? If you were in a State of Nature, then fine- off yourself, but we are not.

So two different reasons, but the same result somehow justify it? A man who shoots a thousand people who asked to be shot is better than a man who shot a thousand silent people?

Either you have a right to life, or you don't. That is the standard- the right to life, and contrary to what you might belive, you cannot legitametly give up a right.

WOW, I'm stumped. We have the right to relinquish our rights?

Because it establishes that sometimes it is okay to murder another individual.

As an individual, you have the ability to do whatever you want- Society exsists to tell you what is and isn't acceptable in that range of things that you are capabale of doing. An individual can take their own life, true, but Society does not have to "allow" it. Society must act ALWAYS to be fair and equitable (read Social Contract)- irregardless of a single individual's desire.

\

I would do the same- however, it would just be hastening my inevitable death which would still be cazused by the ones who imprisoned me- it is not suicide at this point. There is no dignity in death- death is a state of being- dignity is a subjective and irrelavant experience. What you would be escaping is the PAIN- that's all.

Rationalization. Either life is sacred or it isn't- which is it Cindy? What you are attempting to do is say that life is sacred except when we decide as individuals that we have had enough of life, then it is no longer sacred and so we are able to end life... Choose.

I would tell them that they can't kill themselves and if they try they will be commited and restrained from hurting themselves.

We can mitigate the occurence but we can never fully prevent. However, we do stop quite a few as it is now.

I believe you misunderstand. You suggest that the only way for Settler Williams to "save" herself is to kill herself- thus I made my Destroy the village statement. I was pointing out the obvious absurdity of your statement. Killing yourself is not saving yourself- it is simply ending your life.

Yes. It is inherent in the agreement between individual and society- society exsists to protect life.

Nothing, but suicide to escape pain is pretty final and it also infringes on the rest of your rights

No, that's life. Next will be saying that deformed children really can't be enjoying their life all that much, let's do them a favor and spare them the pain...

So then we should allow her to kill herself becuase WE have a hard time dealing with HER pain? Just because something is difficult to do or say dosen't mean it still shouldn't be said or still shouldn't be done- hell that's part of the Mars Society argument for Mars. 

Actually I'm not- I was trying to undermine an anticipated argument- I was trying to disqualify the one "rational" act of suicide- just trying to beat you to the punch, not get us off tract.

I understand the point, but what QUALITY is there in death?

Yes, the will is strong- however, why do you wish to undermine that? Maybe people don't opt for suicide NOW becuase of the oppoisition to it. There is a huge stigma involved with suicide, not only religious, but secular- you argue for removing this stigma and thus making it more acceptable for people to end their own life. As you and I have no doubt, if someone wants to kill themselves, there is very little we can actually do to stop that determination- however, we do not have to say that such acts are acceptable or even tolerable- which is what is at the heart of of what you argue for.

Tatoo's are pretty final... they are a fashion trend.

And?

As would I, however that is not a justification in and of itself.

No, it is not. I do not prefer people to suffer. I do not prefer murder. Just becuase I believe people should not kill themselves does not mean that I do not believe we should try to ease their suffering- I am only stating that i disagree and find it immpermissible that they would choose to end their suffering in a certain and very final way.

Sorry, typo- did not mean to say oj- i was trying to type "oh". It was a general statment that your argument suggests we should make to those who want to kill themselves. 

And what do you base this bit of wisdom on? People starve themselves everyday, many to the point of death. People often go further than you imagine.

Perhaps. But I believe I do have you at least reconsidering... no?

So then what purpose does your suicide then serve? None. It is a meaningless act- so much for your dignity. What dignity is there in a meaningless death?

But this isn't suicide- this is murder- they force you into only one option- death. You will die irregardless of any action you take- so this dosen't apply.