Religion is just people's opinion regarding what god/s want. So it is the best and worst of us, just like secular morality. Both secular ethics and religious ethics rely upon the subjective (or intersubjective) preferences of human beings.

Valuing human life relies upon a presupposition that harming people is wrong. If a person needs reasons for this, perhaps they need psychological help rather than philosophy? We are a social species that seems to be hard wired for empathy and cooperation.

Religion is just people's opinion regarding what god/s want. So it is the best and worst of us, just like secular morality. Both secular ethics and religious ethics rely upon the subjective (or intersubjective) preferences of human beings. — Tom Storm

Religion is much more than people's opinion of what god wants. Religious ethics is very different from actual religion. Religion proper is entirely subjective, it is a reality that absolutely exists for the individual, but which is invisible to everyone else. It is hard to talk about actual religion without spilling over into talking about religious culture. But the distinctions are important.

Religion is much more than people's opinion of what god wants. — Merkwurdichliebe

Indeed, there's a whole cosmos of subjectivism built into every aspect of religious life.

The problem with religion, as far as I can tell, as that it has placed value on unworldly objects, whether the supernatural, the soul, the afterlife, God, and so on. Essentially, and in practice, it places value on ideas instead of objects. These ideas can be myths, stories, narratives, characters, but all are products of the mind, never visible or reachable by any method other than turning into oneself.

We’ll have to dig our way out of that. One way I’ve come to value a person is to recognize her originality. Nothing like her has ever existed, nor ever will, because she’s original, one-of-a-kind, and in that sense effectively priceless.

Presumably they recognize that they themselves have moral value? If so then one could simply ask then to identify a morally relevant difference between themselves and others that would justify believing that oneself had moral value whereas others lack it.

But if they do not even recognize this, then one could point out that most others get the impression persons have moral value. If virtually everyone is getting the visual impression of a sun in the sky but you are not, then the reasonable conclusion to draw is that there is a sun in the sky and that your own visual impressions are failing you on this occasion. That's not always reasonable - for sometimes there's excellent reason to think that it is the faculties of others that are systematically failing - but it's the reasonable default assumption. Likewise, then, with moral impressions (which are just a species of rational impression). If most people get the impression persons have moral value, but you do not share this impression, then the reasonable conclusion to draw - other things being equal - is that other persons have moral value and your own moral impressions are failing you on this occasion.

Of course, if in addition to not getting the impression anyone has any moral value they are also unreasonable, then there's really no reasonable way of persuading them for - by hypothesis - they don't care what they have reason to believe or lack the ability to be able to recognize for more than a second or two that they have reason to believe this or that.

"What you find [harmful], do not do to others."
~Hillel the Elder

Valuing human life relies upon a presupposition that harming people is wrong. If a person needs reasons for this, perhaps they need psychological help rather than philosophy? We are a social species that seems to be hard wired for empathy and cooperation. — Tom Storm

:100:

Tintin was just a bottle of wine for Captain Haddock, the incorrigible alcoholic, to be "uncorked" and drunk! (re The Cigars of the Pharaoh).

Jokes aside, I'd say we're not exactly being pampered here - look around and smell the shit! Whoever our creator is, s/he's abandoned us on this deserted island we call Earth and left us to fend for ourselves. Going by our nature - :naughty: - I'd wager we're not gonna be rescued anytime soon. :snicker:

Anyway, value isn't exactly something that seems justifiable objectively i.e. don't expect everyone to go "yes, you're absolutely right!" Speaking from my own experiences which isn't much, I 'd say rarity or uniqueness is what confers value; mathematically, the value of an x is inversely proportional to the probability of encountering x. Are humans rare? Rare enough I'd say - which animal can rollerblade into the path of a semi? :snicker:

We’ll have to dig our way out of that. One way I’ve come to value a person is to recognize her originality. Nothing like her has ever existed, nor ever will, because she’s original, one-of-a-kind, and in that sense effectively priceless. — NOS4A2

It would be such a better world if every human on the planet had this basic opinion and used it towards each human they met until that human displays actions which don't comply with the golden rule of 'treat others as you would have them treat you.' What I also like about the golden rule is that this allows you to insult or fight with others if you feel there is no other choice and you would accept such treatment from others if that is what you dish out. You can treat others badly if they have treated you badly.
I don't mean an 'eye for an eye,' approach either, your response to bad treatment must fall short of this imo.

Perhaps this is as good a time as any other to mention The Value Paradox.

Water is essential for life, diamonds aren't and yet the former is dirt cheap while the latter burns a hole in your pocket.

Value and Price don't correlate as well as we'd like them to. Perhaps a feature rather than a bug. The takeaway: Costly doesn't imply valuable.

Valuing human life relies upon a presupposition that harming people is wrong. If a person needs reasons for this, perhaps they need psychological help rather than philosophy? We are a social species that seems to be hard wired for empathy and cooperation.

The issue I think is that while we are indeed “hard wired” for empathy and compassion, this doesn’t tell us why someone who isn’t hard wired for empathy and compassion (or someone who is racist, sexist, etc) is “wrong.” The fact that natural selection tends to generally choose people who are empathetic and cooperative thing doesn’t mean people who deviate from this view need to be corrected.

For instance, someone could make the argument (as I’m sure it’s been made in the past) that due to natural selection, we are hard wired for heterosexuality and reproduction. However, to me, it doesn’t follow that homosexuality is necessarily a pathology. Likewise, if most people are generally hard wired for empathy and cooperations, while others are not, we cannot say they are “wrong” unless we can justify it.

The fact that natural selection tends to generally choose people who are empathetic and cooperative thing doesn’t mean people who deviate from this view need to be corrected. — Paulm12

Agree. There are lots of good and terrible attributes which seem to be hard wired in humans. 'Deviant' behaviour is also a part of our heritage. The point is that societies have to choose which of these attributes we will privilege and what we do about the ones we think are unhelpful. This process is not scientific and relies upon intersubjective agreement and ongoing dialogue. In a broader sense morality is created by us to build social cooperation to achieve our preferred forms of order.

Imagine someone comes along and claims they have no respect for the value of human life — Paulm12

If they won't give you their kidney right there on the spot or object if you try to help yourself to it, they're bluffing.

(or the value of the lives of certain groups humans) — Paulm12

Like, race or social/economic class? Well, if you ever get shot in New York City you'll find out pretty quickly. A homeless bum runs to a nearby deli a millionaire built and calls 911 bringing an ambulance with an Asian paramedic driven by a black driver to take you to an Indian doctor just in the nick of time before you bleed out in some trash-filled alleyway. For example.

Well, other people might not want to be treated the exact same way you want to be treated. That’s why the golden rule fails, in my opinion. Better to find out how they want to be treated first of all instead of assuming that everyone wants the same treatment as yourself.

The issue I think is that while we are indeed “hard wired” for empathy and compassion, this doesn’t tell us why someone who isn’t hard wired for empathy and compassion (or someone who is racist, sexist, etc) is “wrong.” — Paulm12

There's a much larger problem faced in determining if anyone is 'wrong' in any context.

We know that Christian sects have been at war with each other for centuries over a single book. There is no agreement about abortion, capital punishment, trans rights, gun ownership, homosexuality, euthanasia, blood transfusions, taxation, stem-cell research, illicit drugs, slavery, prostitution, - you name it. Everyone is certain that their understanding of scripture, or their personal faith is right and some other person's understanding and faith is wrong. How can anyone demonstrate that they know what god/s want? It's subjective preference. In other words, the problems faced by secular morality are shared by religious morality.

Well, other people might not want to be treated the exact same way you want to be treated. That’s why the golden rule fails, in my opinion. Better to find out how they want to be treated first of all instead of assuming that everyone wants the same treatment as yourself. — NOS4A2

There may be specific ways of being treated they may not want (not sharing a taste in music or some S&M shit) but pushing that treatment on them would be ignoring the golden rule for other specific ways of being treated (like not having things pushed on you).
It seems to me the golden rule remains intact. The exception to its merit you described above would only be valid if you ignored the golden rule in the first place. Unless you want to argue that people generally dont mind people making assumptions about how they like to be treated then I think the golden rule demands you do not make such assumptions. So it is as you say we shouldnt make those assumptions but the golden rule has that covered as far as I can tell.

My pensées on the matter (the value od human life).

1. Life, in and of itself, is valuable. It stands out from the vast cold & dead universe. Life is rare: only 1 planet in our adorable solar system.

2. Are we valuable to life? True we seem to be agents of extinction - we're on Thanatos' payroll. Yet, we seem to appreciate the great web of life, we're in the process of sussing out its secrets and we seem to want to keep Earth's ecology in one piece. We're life's best chance at surviving catastrophes, big and small, fast and slow. We're, to that extent, valuable.

The golden rule does not fail, but it is open to abuse like everything else.
A twisting of the rule (such as a masochistic rapist who wants to be raped) does not discredit it or cause it to fail. It's like putting sewage water in your coffee, it's only something morons do.
What a shame you soiled your nice post.
Well said @DingoJones!

Well, other people might not want to be treated the exact same way you want to be treated. That’s why the golden rule fails, in my opinion. Better to find out how they want to be treated first of all instead of assuming that everyone wants the same treatment as yourself. — NOS4A2

:up:

I don't think the golden rule is meant be viewed in such a concrete way. My understanding, and how it was taught to me, was always that you treat others as you would like to be treated - in other words, to be consulted - to be asked what you like and to have your individual preferences respected. Now it is easy to upset this idea with some ridiculous exaggeration like saying, 'What if the other person is a cannibal!?'. I think this kind of attempted debunking of the golden rule is is a dodge and a distortion.

:up: :clap:

My understanding, and how it was taught to me, was always that you treat others as you would like to be treated - in other words, to be consulted - to be asked what you like and to have your individual preferences respected. — Tom Storm

:fire: :clap: The scales now drop from my eyes, but I see there's more work that needs doing. Please continue.

Not much of a rule, then.

Still, assumptions are made, behavior is premised on them. Worse still, it’s self-cantered. You consider yourself before considering anyone else.

Not much of a rule, then.

It could be as simple as a handshake. No need to pretend we’re speaking about cannibalism.

Still, assumptions are made, behavior is premised on them. Worse still, it’s self-cantered. You consider yourself before considering anyone else. — NOS4A2

This is why Hillel’s formulation of the Golden Rule (who was a Pharisaic scholar who lived a little before Jesus and probably an influence as far as one can tell anything of a historical Jesus).
"That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

But I tend to agree, if the person is a real asshole they might not mind hateful and harmful things. Thus the Golden Rule is extremely informal. There must be more rigorous ethics underpinning it, and that is the point of ethical reasoning above and beyond quick and dirty sayings.

In this case it should be clear because we are different in our thresholds and standards of what is harmful, we should not act as though we can know everyone’s threshold/standard of harm and thus must respect that when making decisions that affect others to a reasonable degree. It’s a kind of call for quietude and least aggression or presumption.

Not much of a rule, then — NOS4A2

I think your opinion of the golden rule is a tiny minority opinion and is misguided.

Worse still, it’s self-cantered. You consider yourself before considering anyone else. — NOS4A2

That's just your poor interpretation. The golden rule considers all stakeholders on an equal and balanced basis.

The thing about the golden rule is not everyone grasps it.

Hillel’s formulation of the Golden Rule — schopenhauer1

Yep, it's often quoted here by @180 Proof There are many variations. Another favourite:

One should never do something to others that one would regard as an injury to one's own self.
- Mahābhārata 13.114.8 (Critical edition)

Thus the Golden Rule is extremely informal. There must be more rigorous ethics underpinning it, and that is the point of ethical reasoning. — schopenhauer1

I think of it as a principle to guide action, not a block of concrete. But it's not the last word in moral thinking.

That's just your poor interpretation. The golden rule considers all stakeholders on an equal and balanced basis.

That’s the problem to begin with. Tastes, manners, proclivities, beliefs, desires, etc. are pluralistic.

The thing about the golden rule is not everyone grasps it. — Tom Storm

Some posters demonstrate your observation quite definitively.

There are many variations. — Tom Storm

Indeed! Luke 6:31 has "And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them."
A masochistic rapists dream, no doubt, but none of the more easily twisted versions worry me.
The golden rule is an excellent humanist/socialist mission statement imo.

That’s the problem to begin with. Tastes, manners, proclivities, beliefs, desires, etc. are pluralistic. — NOS4A2

My advice is simple, pick your team/place your vote/plant your flag etc as wisely as you can.
You pay for your learning. You make your choice and you pay the price, good or bad.
Look before you leap!
Trust your friends but secure that which you care about.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
.
.
.
Ad nauseum. Life has many many many flavours (pluralistic) but you must bite/lick etc to know what any single choice tastes like! Those who spend their life sitting on fences will simply go through life with a constant sore arse!

The point is that societies have to choose which of these attributes we will privilege and what we do about the ones we think are unhelpful. This process is not scientific and relies upon intersubjective agreement and ongoing dialogue

Yeah, this is how I see it too. Hopefully there are some basic principles most people can agree on, and then build a society off of these principles that is able to reinforce them.

Indeed! Luke 6:31 has "And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them."
A masochistic rapists dream, no doubt, but none of the more easily twisted versions worry me.
The golden rule is an excellent humanist/socialist mission statement imo

Couldn’t agree more with this. I’ve found the Golden Rule (and it’s variants like the categorical imperitive) to be excellent guides or “starting points” for behavior.

I think the point of the Golden Rule is to take a charitable interpretation. It acts as a good starting point for how to treat someone when you don’t know how they themselves want to be treated. If you know they’d rather be treated differently in certain circumstances, then obviously, you want to treat them the way *they* want to be treated as you’d want them to treat you the way *you* want to be treated. So I’d argue it works on a higher order as well.

Christians, Humanists, Buddhists, etc have a lot of common ground in this area.

Christians, Humanists, Buddhists, etc have a lot of common ground in this area. — Paulm12

I think the golden rule is held dearly by all good people. As an atheist, I have met many theists who seem to be humble, decent people who would help you if you needed them. I can never agree with their theism but your religion or lack of it can have little to do with your basic compassion for your fellow human beings. I judge a person by what they do much much more than what they say.
Each of us can justify the value of human life, including our own life by what we do every day.