Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Yes.

Why?

Because every human being is dichotomous: body and soul which will live at one of two addresses for eternity..

First that reason does not support your conclusion, and second it's not true.

Moreover, the question was asked of people who DON'T believe in such souls.

So to answer the question "if people are just made of stuff and have no souls do they have value?"
you answer "Yes! because they have souls..."

And you wonder why people think you're an idiot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My cat quite clearly values her life as well as that of her kitten. She may even put value on my life, but doesn't show it except at meal time or when she needs the door opened.
I do communicate with my cat when she feels like it.
A fancy philosophical debate is simply not necessary.

Your cat is unable to communicate what she may or may not feel about how humans perceive themselves so she is unable to enter the debate on what value humans place on their own lives and on the lives of cats. That was what I was getting at.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The communication we are discussing relates to an examination of how humans perceive themselves and what value they place on their lives and on the lives of animals.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

In most instances, the necessary commitment and work needed to do so successfully would probably be beyond western academics or outside their scope of interest or expertise or it might constitute a financially non-viable academic activity.

However, I don't think we can claim such comprehension and communication is beyond the capacity of humans or that the failure of some "English-speaking ethnocentric American academics" to do so means that the capacity and potential to do so is not a human characteristic.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This debate is a bunch of humans asking themselves "is human life sacred?" Having said that, if animals were to join our debate and give us pause for thought regarding our humancentricism I would welcome it. 😛

Originally posted by FMF
This debate is a bunch of humans asking themselves "is human life sacred?" Having said that, if animals were to join our debate and give us pause for thought regarding our humancentricism I would welcome it. 😛

Animals would no doubt agree that humans are a scourge upon the planet.

Originally posted by rwingett
Animals would no doubt agree that humans are a scourge upon the planet.

They would replace us and our systems with The Law Of The Jungle, things like mousism, catism, dogism, would run rife, and creatures like mosquitoes would no longer be held in contempt.

Originally posted by FMF
Your cat is unable to communicate what she may or may not feel about how humans perceive themselves so she is unable to enter the debate on what value humans place on their own lives and on the lives of cats. That was what I was getting at.

Huh? And why were you 'getting at' such a contorted situation?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
If you hold the view that life was created by an everlasting being, does this life have any value?

If you hold that it does, does the life of the everlasting being have any value?

And if you hold that they both have value, can we not therefore say that whether life was created by another being, or not, has no bearing on whether it has value?

So human life has the same value as plant and animal life?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Huh? And why were you 'getting at' such a contorted situation?

The point I was making to Fetchmyjunk and vivify was that if we can't communicate with animals, and they can't communicate with us, then there is no debate with animals going on about how humans perceive themselves.

Originally posted by FMF
The point I was making to Fetchmyjunk and vivify was that if we can't communicate with animals, and they can't communicate with us, then there is no debate with animals going on about how humans perceive themselves.

we can't communicate with animals,

Have you never told your dog to sit?

Originally posted by FMF
The point I was making to Fetchmyjunk and vivify was that if we can't communicate with animals, and they can't communicate with us, then there is no debate with animals going on about how humans perceive themselves.

And why would there be a debate going on with animals about how humans perceive themselves?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not objective. It is necessarily subjective to some valuer. What has intrinsic value to you, may not have intrinsic value to me.

So you believe life has no objective value then?