Is Human life intrinsically valuable? I mean valuable in a sacred sense? The idea that taking of a human life is never justified. Such a position is held by some religious groups that would say that taking of life, on the battle field, in an execution for crimes, in an abortion procedure, or any other way, even in self defense, is wrong and immoral. However most people and religions don't share such a strict adherence to those kind of principles in practice. They allow the taking of life in some circumstances.
It is generally accepted that the value society places on human life is selective. Different societies,including religions, place value on some forms of human life and not on others. Different societies have different codes that decide the value of human life to them. Those codes don't necessarily translate across the boundaries into other societies. In fact seldom do. We don't say it that way, but that's what it reduces to.
What is gets down to, is the value of human life is essentially what society, as reflected by it's elected officials, by the vote or by a ruling dictator, decides it is.
If some society decides that's Okay to leave the elder to die when they no longer can contribute to the tribe, then that is what will be done. A common practice among some of the primitive peoples and practiced to some extent today in our modern society. It was justified as necessary for the survival of the tribe. And, some cases and primitive societies it probably was.
If society decides that some injuries sustained are too bad to fix, or some disability too severe to admit to the tribe because they can not contribute, it's Okay to just get rid of them. Nazi Germany took that stand. So did the ancient Spartans among others.
If they are are members of what is perceived to be an inferior race, then it's Okay to enslave them and kill them because their life has little intrinsic value. They may have value as property, but they have little intrinsic value as human beings. A civil war was fought over that issue.
The enemy
on the battle field has little or no value, compared to mine, so it's
Okay to kill them. More civilized societies have a code that says that once the enemy surrenders, then their value increases and it's no longer right or proper to kill. Although if was clear in WWII that the Japanese never shared that conviction. In fact, in their culture, surrendering just proves that the enemy was inferior and therefore deserves no compassion.
The value of the individual soldier in the military has value, basically, according to their rank. A good example is what went on in the Great War (WWI). Higher ranking officers, almost all from the British, French or German aristocracy sent thousands of men across no mans land in the face of withering machine gun and cannon fire, knowing that there was little chance of success. The common soldiers died by the thousands. But, they did it anyway time and time again. The common soldier had little human value to the officers ordering the attack, while sitting in their comfortable villas far from the action.
If a person doesn't believe in the same religion as
my society or religion, their life has little or no value so we can kill
them. We now have a large segment of Islam that fervently believes in the idea that the followers of their religion are the only one who have the right to live. Everyone else have no value as human beings.
The Man/Woman who commits murder or other heinous crimes have
lost their value to society and that it's alright to execute them.
Granted that some states have banned executions, but it wasn't because
of the belief in the value of human life.
The fetus of unborn child has
little value if it inconveniences the potential mother, and the mothers
life is of greater value, so it's alright to terminate that fetus. We just recently witnessed an open election in Ireland, a very Catholic country, where a majority of the voters decided that the unborn child doesn't have an intrinsic value and can be terminated on request by the mother. The Irish came from all over the world in order to vote in that election. There was a huge support effort by the abortion forces in the United States to push for approval of this law. Although I'm not sure exactly what the abortion advocates of the United States have to do with the women of Ireland. The paradox is that most of these voters declare themselves as Christian. I guess that doesn't mean what it used to.
Of course the abortion advocates shroud their movement in nice sounding names, the most used is "woman's right to choose". That means the woman has the right to decide between the value of the fetus they are carrying and their own inconvenience. Sometimes it's "women's health", but the result is the same. In any event, it means that the unborn child, even up to moment of birth, has far less value than the potential mother.
Society
has produced some strange paradoxes in our definition of the value of
human life. It seems that most people who don't value the human fetus as
having significant value, place great value on a criminal's life and
are against executions. Some people won't eat meat because of ethical
principles because they value the animals life highly, but will condone
abortions because they value the life of the human fetus less.
The value of human life varies from society to society and over time. What is valued at one time is not in another, and vice versa. It is certain that this trend will continue. Something that is not acceptable today, might be okay tomorrow and our concept of the value of human life changes. Who knows, murder may become acceptable. Maybe it already has.
