Purpose and Meaning

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, but I don't understand your answer either. Value does not mean
superiorty, you can have some modern cars, place it next to a very old
model in great condition and value would be placed upon the very
old car over the modern ones. Value can be placed upon some metals
over others and so on, it depends on who is making the judgment
calls. If the market ...[text shortened]... value of one over another, than I'd say God's value system will,
of course, win out.
Kelly

so you answered your own question. although i may think we are nothing but animals, not superior to them, i value a human's life more.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
so you answered your own question. although i may think we are nothing but animals, not superior to them, i value a human's life more.

I think we are more valuable and superior to animals and I think we
are much more than animals as well, this does not mean animals do
not hold value, but nothing compared to humans.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I guess the former:
What is your criteria (assuming you have such criteria -I don’t mean to imply that you MUST have such criteria) for assessing the respective value of lives?

Honestly, I can only understand 'value' as shorthand for 'reason-giving force', so I interpret the question "Which of two lives is more valuable?" as elliptical for "Which of two lives does one have more reason to protect, promote, save, etc.?". And I doubt any question of this sort can be answered in the abstract, without paying attention to the particularities of context and circumstance. I certainly do not think there is anything like a decision procedure or an algorithm for determining the respective value of lives. I do think there are considerations that typically matter in making such determinations. Does one have a special relationship with the entity whose life is in question (is the entity a loved one, friend or intimate)? Of the two lives in question, which stands to be harmed more by damage or destruction? Presumably, most non-human animals lose more, and have more interests frustrated by death than most humans, just based on the sophistication of their respective psychologies. Does one have a special obligation to the entity in question? For instance, if one has promised to care for and protect a certain entity, or if one occupies a certain social role bound up with such special obligations (e.g., parent, teacher, ward), then that provides a reason in favor of that entity over another to whom one bears no special obligation. Is one life instrumental to the maintenance or procurement of other things of value? There are other considerations, but these should do to indicate the general way I go about dealing with such questions. I am, in general, a pluralist and a particularist about questions in applied ethics.