Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:47:04 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:

One human life is (intrinsically) more valuable than ANY amount of money
or material things. This category, of course, includes pets, livestock,
and wild animals.

That is an opinion based on personal values. It cannot have any basis in
fact, and I'm sure a fair percentage of the population of the world
would disagree. I don't even agree that a human life has intrinsic
value; rather, it is valued by its internal world view and by the value
placed on it by others. I believe that some lives have negative value:
they harm me, or they harm many people.

It's better to say that the value of a human life is "priceless" - we
cannot put a monetary value on a human life.


In fact, the notion that animals are "things" is also a statement of
values, not fact. I don't share it. I would not offer the life of my dog
to save the life of a stranger. I place more personal value on my dog
than I do on most people.

Is that because your dog is a living creature, or is it because you
value your dog so much?

Your house is a thing, right? A big and important thing but still a thing.
Would you offer your house to save the life of a stranger? I believe most
people would not do that.

Different people have different values. You
certainly don't need to respect those values, but you do need to respect
the right to hold different values.
_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

On Oct 19, 5:45*am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:47:04 GMT,
(John Savard) wrote:

One human life is (intrinsically) more valuable than ANY amount of money
or material things. This category, of course, includes pets, livestock,
and wild animals.

That is an opinion based on personal values. It cannot have any basis in
fact, and I'm sure a fair percentage of the population of the world
would disagree. I don't even agree that a human life has intrinsic
value; rather, it is valued by its internal world view and by the value
placed on it by others. I believe that some lives have negative value:
they harm me, or they harm many people.

It's better to say that the value of a human life is "priceless" - we
cannot put a monetary value on a human life.

In fact, the notion that animals are "things" is also a statement of
values, not fact. I don't share it. I would not offer the life of my dog
to save the life of a stranger. I place more personal value on my dog
than I do on most people.

Is that because your dog is a living creature, or is it because you
value your dog so much?

Your house is a thing, right? *A big and important thing but still a thing.
Would you offer your house to save the life of a stranger? *I believe most
people would not do that.

Different people have different values. You
certainly don't need to respect those values, but you do need to respect
the right to hold different values.
_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, *Grev Turegatan 40, *SE-114 38 Stockholm, *SWEDEN
e-mail: *pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: * *http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Hypocritical greens have their place in this world just like all other
charlatans. What is funny is watching the Al Gores of thw world get
rich off of their pathetic ignorance.

utopia has been tried many times by such folks as the communists--
didn't work though.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:45:19 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

It's better to say that the value of a human life is "priceless" - we
cannot put a monetary value on a human life.

That might be a somewhat better term, but for me, still not entirely
accurate. Money has "value" to me, and lives have "value", and in the
end those values- in whatever units I imagine them- get translated to
some sort of internalized unit that only make sense to me. So
ultimately, I do place a monetary value on human life. I would readily
give one dollar to save almost everyone (but even here, there are
exceptions). My conditions would get tighter as the dollar figure grew.
I probably would not give $1000 to save an arbitrary stranger with no
connection to me at all. I'd give more for a person of influence that I
believe gives value to all. I'd give more for family. I'd give more for
an adult, less for a child, nearly nothing for a baby. Different people
have different rules, and some might not be honest enough with
themselves or others to admit it, but I think you'd have a hard time
finding anybody who doesn't think this way.


Is that because your dog is a living creature, or is it because you
value your dog so much?

It is because I make no distinction between how I value a person and how
I value a pet. Only on the actual value I internalize. My wife has more
value (to me) than my dog. Most members of my community also have more
value (to me) than my dog. But my dog has more value (to me) than most
strangers whose lives have little impact on my own.


Your house is a thing, right? A big and important thing but still a thing.
Would you offer your house to save the life of a stranger? I believe most
people would not do that.

These are the sort of questions that get discussed in philosophy
classes, and which rarely crop up in real life. I agree with you that
very few people would give up their house to save a stranger, although I
think many of those would claim that they would make this sacrifice.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 19, 9:59*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:45:19 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
It's better to say that the value of a human life is "priceless" - we
cannot put a monetary value on a human life.

That might be a somewhat better term, but for me, still not entirely
accurate. Money has "value" to me, and lives have "value", and in the
end those values- in whatever units I imagine them- get translated to
some sort of internalized unit that only make sense to me. So
ultimately, I do place a monetary value on human life. I would readily
give one dollar to save almost everyone (but even here, there are
exceptions). My conditions would get tighter as the dollar figure grew.
I probably would not give $1000 to save an arbitrary stranger with no
connection to me at all. I'd give more for a person of influence that I
believe gives value to all. I'd give more for family. I'd give more for
an adult, less for a child, nearly nothing for a baby. Different people
have different rules, and some might not be honest enough with
themselves or others to admit it, but I think you'd have a hard time
finding anybody who doesn't think this way.

Is that because your dog is a living creature, or is it because you
value your dog so much?

It is because I make no distinction between how I value a person and how
I value a pet. Only on the actual value I internalize. My wife has more
value (to me) than my dog. Most members of my community also have more
value (to me) than my dog. But my dog has more value (to me) than most
strangers whose lives have little impact on my own.

Your house is a thing, right? *A big and important thing but still a thing.
Would you offer your house to save the life of a stranger? *I believe most
people would not do that.

These are the sort of questions that get discussed in philosophy
classes, and which rarely crop up in real life. I agree with you that
very few people would give up their house to save a stranger, although I
think many of those would claim that they would make this sacrifice.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Why stop with dogs? Why not get some gerbils to fall in love with? Or,
perhaps, cockroaches? They are alive aren't they? Seems they fit your
personality well.