Understanding What Is The Special Value To Life

Value of life is a question is which many of us try to answer how valuable is our life, how valuable are peoples lives in general. This could be a dark subject if the outcome might be as positive as someone may think. When we talk about life many of us only think of human life should we talk about the value of animal life too? As without many of them we might not even be here. Many people who do in fact believe in the sanctity of human life still think it is wrong to be cruel to animals, but they might think they do have the right to kill and eat animals and they might think they need to eat and kill animals for their lives to live longer. So does this mean because of the value we hold about our lives that this makes us selfish? I will talk about this further throughout the essay. The view of human life might be more important than animals might be associate with the monotheistic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism. These associate which incline a separation of human and the rest of nature and see humans as ‘top of the food chain’.

Whereas other religions might like Hinduism think cows are sacred and Jains do extend this to all animal life. It goes further more like Druids include tree and plant life and with some non religious people, or have least people who are not conventionally religious, with also sometimes hold that all animal life, and sometimes vegetable life as well, is in some way are sacred. The next factor when we talk about just human life do most people thinks that all human life is scared? With some of their supports of the sanctity view, religious and many non religious may believe also in a more in a capital punishment. I will look at a few cases and ideas on how life is valued are in certain places of society.

Ronald Dworkin who claims that with the very so abortion controversy which could be settled and the tension between two opposing all groups to the argument on the morals behind abortion eliminated which once we have to acknowledge that we are all united to have our own belief on the intrinsic value of human life (Lazarev, 2005). In this paper it focuses on the narrower subject of the intrinsic value of human life (Lazarev, 2005). Which this taking into consideration of the moral permissibity of abortion, the foetal rights and foetal status (Lazarev, 2005).

Ronald Dworkin has an more valued or interesting argument in which he states that the raging controversy in any relation to the morality of abortion is based on the fact of an intellectual confusion’ which he says ‘can identify and dispel’ he suggests that the reasonable settlement of the controversy can be achieved if which’ will not insult or demean any group, one that everyone can accept with a full self- respect’ (Lazarev, 2005). This is confusion in what the public forum over the abortion on two grounds, a derivative objection and a detached objection (Lazarev, 2005).

The objection is that in a position which is held by people who believe that abortion is totally wrong and that the government must prohibit it in because they believe the foetuses are creatures with interest and rights, which includes the right to life (Lazarev, 2005). With this in mind abortion is therefore wrong because it will violate the foetuses right its life in the same way as it would violate any human for the right to a life (Lazarev, 2005). Thus, all the people who will believe that the government should regulate about abortion for this reason believe that the government has to take responsibility (Lazarev, 2005). The detched the objection is that a human life has intrinsic value and is sacred just in it (Lazarev, 2005). Many people who object to abortion on the ground have a detached objection for example one that is not derived from the rights or interests of the foetus (Lazarev, 2005). People who will accept that the foetus should be protected on this basis, therefore, believe that government has a detached their responsbitiy in regulating abortion (Lazarev, 2005).

Dworkin, continues to argue that the objection to the topic of abortion on the derivative grounds which the foetuses have the rights and interests in remaining alive which cannot be sustained (Lazarev, 2005). He suggests that not only has the foetuses have the entities with the rights or interests (Lazarev, 2005). He does attempt to dispel the intellectual mix-up, therefore, the focuses on the first, pointing out that people who apparently take polarised views on the morality of abortion which in the reality share a common belief in the respect of the value in the basis of human life, which will form the detached objection (Lazarev, 2005). The knowledge that life is intrinsically valuable and the sacred, and we simply differ in our interpretations of what respecting human life as intrinsically the valuable entails, which we would know according to Dworkin, however, achieve reconciliation of the highly polarised the debate on abortion (Lazarev, 2005). All opinions in the respect of it should e more advanced to the basis of the intrinsic value may differ from each person and Dworkin holds that the government should not impose a collective interpretation on each person (Lazarev, 2005). This should indeed allow certain people to form their own view on life’s intrinsic value, as in the case of abortion such views are either ‘essentially religious’’ in so far as the people have their own convictions in relation to the pro-creative decisions they make (Lazarev, 2005). To ensure a particular interpretation of how to respect the intrinsic value of human life would this would infringe on the freedom of religion, the cornerstone of western democracy (Lazarev, 2005).

Dworkin’s argument of the basis of intrinsic value which plays the a big role not only be the way in which we can value human life but also because it also gives rise to another, yet the more important factor of sacredness of each human life (Lazarev, 2005). The growing fact that human life is as sacred as many may form a strong basis for their own protection, but therefore we embrace this notion we must have the probe to see if there are any problems with Dworkin’s understanding of each factor of sacred intrinsic value (Lazarev, 2005).

On the base of this most people would agree that it is wrong to kill another human Dworkin would say that it is because a human life is of the most part is sacred and inviolable (Lazarev, 2005). But it would appears that his conception of intrinsic value does not allow us to have a more clear view to see why it is necessarily wrong to kill humans, for there are more problems in his view of what it is that makes a human life more valuable in this as he says intrinsic way (Lazarev, 2005). He would suggest that we all value on the works of art and human life as a sacred because our valuation of them which shares a certain attachment of the value to the process that will be brought them into existence, the sacred (Lazarev, 2005). Dworkin does however, attempts to delineate the more sacredness of human life from other kinds of sacred things, like as art, or by the differences between the processes that give the rise to the sacred value of the entity which is questioned (Lazarev, 2005).

This view of the special value of life, Dworkin, does not a potential scope for the existence of intrinsic value of human life, does however, offer a weak explanation of that is justifies valuing human life in this way (Lazarev, 2005). More explanation is needed, however, in order to have to persuade people of the opposing view to abortion to accept his position that each human life is intrinsically valuable (Lazarev, 2005). If this is the factor is indeed accepted then people would, which Dworkin, acknowledge that a foetus is an organism of intrinsic value and that it must have a matter for the mother to decide herself how the mother wants to respect it (Lazarev, 2005). This idea would have to have a state of ‘neutrality’ in this decision on procreation as these, this as Dworkin points out, are essentially on religious matters (Lazarev, 2005). But I would suggest that this idea would fail if he cannot justify or explain why any value human life intrinsically and would thus hope unite people in acknowledgment of the intrinsic value of human life (Lazarev, 2005).

The next case I will look into on how to weight up the value is an interesting article it first of all states how we define with the importance or the preciousness of something (Latimore, 2017). The receiver of any consumer that will decide how important or precious something is. With some things will always be universally valuable while others will be a matter of personal matter (Latimore, 2017). While we all need food we do not need companionship or we do not need to watch a certain sport (Latimore, 2017). It is all in the factor of exchange, if you want to get a new car, the accepted value exchange is money (Latimore, 2017). If you steal it however, that would take more value than you giving. If you start down this road it will lead to misery and hardship (Latimore, 2017). So you decide then you give money or keep stealing (Latimore, 2017).

In order for you to get money you get a job. The more valuable you are to them the more money they give you, to put it in a simple term (Latimore, 2017). If you were homeless you be less valuable it could be argued because of the fact they’re always begging that they take more value than they give (Latimore, 2017). Most if not all of them are full of misery and suffer hardship (Latimore, 2017). They are jobs which anyone could do but someone has to do like cleaners. These jobs don’t pay as much as someone who is a doctor as they provide a valuable service but can only this one person at a time (Latimore, 2017). Whereas some professional athletes do not provide a vital service but they do make a lot of people very happy (Latimore, 2017).

This value brings the importance you bring to people and how many people you provide your service to (Latimore, 2017). This is the classic philosophical thought experiments if they were two train track and two trains on each one train track has a doctor which has the cue to cancer the other has 5 normal people with normal jobs which one would you save the answer would be the doctor as in the longer term they could protetionally save more people. So that would give his life more of a special value then the other 5 people.

This type of principle could also apply to a relationship (Latimore, 2017). People who want to be with you based on a certain value you could provide them (Latimore, 2017). If you do not provide people with enough of a special value then you could find yourself to be alone this could be a romantic, familial or business value (Latimore, 2017). This is a different approach as it is doesn’t state that all life has a special value to them but it states that you speciality of your life is determined on what you do and what you provide to society.

Overall, I think these two different looks on if there is a special value to life are interesting I would suggest that all life is important and provide some sort of value, with our perceptions on what we think each value of the person or animal might provide for example vegans will think animals are the same special value as humans are but some meat eaters might not think the same but the might think a dog holds more value then a chicken. People’s opinion I feel holds the key to what we think a special value of life is as the Nazi’s would say that no one people what they would suggest is the Anerin race is valuable. So I feel it is that matter of who you talk to which is the factor to which you can determine what or how special life is.