If life had no intrinsic value then we wouldn’t be here. If we viewed life with the same value as, say, card board, or a useless byproduct, then we would not think twice when one killed another. It is in our nature to view life has intrinsically more valuable than other things. Life does not acquire value because it is a means to an end, rather, it is an end in itself.
Just because we view life with a different value then say card board doesn’t mean life has an intrinsic value. That’s faulty logic.
I think life has value from the perspective of conscious creatures, if there is no conscious creatures life has no value so for me, the term “intrinsic” doesn’t really apply.
Plus we now know that life isn’t an “end”. Life is not the plan, or the goal…it just happened.
life has whatever value people give it - there’s nothing intrinsic about its value - it’s totally possible to value cardboard more than life - after all, people die for all sorts of seemingly pointless shit - we are “free” to value whatever we choose, however much or little we choose
The idea of intrinsic value is confusing because it pretends at something it is not. Nothing can be valuable in itself, because nothing is valuable except to someone, to an entity capable of what we call “valuing”. But the idea of intrinsic value is not without meaning, because some things, to us, appear as valuable in themselves, or as valuable in such a way that to question that value seems impossible. “Life” itself is the condition of our existence, and as existing entities it would seem “impossible” to question our own existing in a fundamental way, since the act of questioning at all supposes that one exists, and is alive. Can we become even through abstract speculation what we are not?
What is it to value? I think valuing is an attitude toward, an affective stance, a being drawn to and drawn toward based on some quality that the valuing self posits as important or vital in some way. Value emerges from our nature and is based on perception, and is no more real (and no less real) than perception is real.
As entities with a sort of awareness, we humans value things that forcibly imprint themselves upon our perceptions and thoughts, that force our acts of experiencing to organize around their presence. The body “values” what it encounters, what affects it, because the body is forced to react to this presence, to resist it and take an affirmative or negative stance against it. We value “life” because we are in a state of being alive, and to value is, for us, a deeply connected part of our being alive.
Or in other words: no, life does not have intrinsic value. 
nothing really makes sense about the notion that something can be valuable in and of itself, since value is a relation between at least two things. generally, exponents of “intrinsic value” misuse the word intrinsic to mean valued by God, or otherwise universally valued. but even if the universe and/or God cared, the word intrinsic wouldn’t apply: as has been pointed out, value requires a subject.
true
Let me be clear that only a living being can sense value, so a rock does not view a human as valuable. However, if you’re conscious, then you must view life as valuable, if you did not, then we would not be here. For every second of your life, all of your actions have reflected the assumption that life is valuable. You have never killed yourself, you have always sought to protect yourself from death and you have never killed anyone. If you assert that life is not valuable, then why is it that all of your actions have been done to the contrary?
[/quote]
This view is based on bad science that many preeminent philosophers reject, among them Noam Chomsky, Thomas Nagel, Karl Poper, Jerry Fodor. Even Stephen J Gould said that evolutionary theory does not apply to the human mind.
This is just an argument over semantics, you’re just quibbling over what intrinsic means, you’re not really attacking my main thesis. Perhaps I should use a different word other than intrinsic, let me explain what I mean. If you program a computer to react when you hit the return button, then it is in that computers nature to react when you hit the return button, I call that reaction intrinsic, maybe that’s not the best word but it is close enough to what English speakers use when they use intrinsic. Everyone agrees that we humans have a survival instinct. Is it correct to say that that instinct is intrinsic? Maybe innate would be better. Fine, life has innate value.
that we have a survival instinct does not mean life has innate value - it means we have an innate tendency to value our lives - if that’s all you’re saying, then i suppose i agree - but i get the impression you’re claiming that there is value to life beyond what we ascribe to it - am i wrong?
Actually a living being can’t sense value. Only a conscious living being can. Plants don’t feel value.
I never said life wasn’t valuable. Obviously it is.
I said life didn’t have intrinsic value.
Big difference!
Bad science? in what way exactly?
Intrinsic:
belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing. (Merriam-Webster)
Intrinsic value: a value that cannot be denied
Instrumental value: a value that is relative to the person and the circumstance
For the purposes of this definition, innate and inherent will be used interchangeably with intrinsic. The most important thing in the above definition provided by Merriam-Webster, is that another being cannot deny if something belongs to the essential nature of someone else. For example, few would argue that the ability to feel pain is intrinsic to Bill Clinton. Clinton might feel less pain vis-à-vis certain thing, but no one denies that he can feel pain. There is a one chance in a trillion that for his whole life he has merely pretended to feel pain, but that possibility does not effect the construction of our worldview. So if I were to say the ability to feel pain is not intrinsic/innate or inherent in Bill Clinton I would be wrong.
Contrasted with intrinsic value is instrumental value. Humans literally put a value on everything, many things they do not value at all. For example, I value the star Sirius not at all, the same applies to cardboard that I have no use for. When I want to mail a book, a certain cardboard box will acquire some instrumental value. Instrumental value is relative to the person and the circumstance. Intrinsic value is not.
Actually a living being can’t sense value. Only a conscious living being can. Plants don’t feel value.
This is just a pedantic point. You're quibbling over what types of life can sense value, you're not attacking the main thesis.
I never said life wasn’t valuable. Obviously it is. I said life didn’t have intrinsic value. Big difference!
You're going to have to read my definition and tell me whether or not you think life has intrinsic or instrumental value, or if you think there are other categories for value.
Oh, I’ve “attacked” the main thesis plenty, and all the others you posted did as well, you just don’t want to listen. "Intrinsic "simply doesn’t apply.
Here’s a better definition from good ol’ wikipedia:
An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has[b] of itself, independently of other things[/b].
Now, if there’s no conscious creatures around (or the possibility of consciousness appearing trough evolution), how can life have any property of itself?
[Oh, I’ve “attacked” the main thesis plenty, and all the others you posted did as well, you just don’t want to listen. ]
You’re just begging the question that, one, you’ve attacked plenty, and two, that I don’t listen.
["Intrinsic "simply doesn’t apply. Here’s a better definition from good ol’ wikipedia:
An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things. Now, if there’s no conscious creatures around (or the possibility of consciousness appearing trough evolution), how can life have any property of itself?]
When you’re attacking someone’s thesis, you have to look at what they write and refute it. You didn’t prove that I was wrong, you just proved that wiki has a different definition for a word I’m using. This is called the fallacy of missing the point. As I have already said in the post above, only conscious beings can sense value. There are two types of value. Intrinsic value is value that cannot be denied.
Value isn’t a property
First of all, can you start quoting like everyone else does because otherwise it looks like a mess and I can’t distinguish what I wrote from what you wrote.
The only one missing the point here is you. How could I (or anyone else for that matter) prove that life doesn’t have intrinsic value? Don’t you know that it’s impossible to prove a negative of that sort? And you have the nerve to talk about bad science…
An intrinsic value can not be denied but what is intrinsic value? The fact that it can’t be denied is a characteristic, not the definition. Like I said, intrinsic, in philosophical terms means “property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things.” Even in my native language that’s what intrinsic means. It doesn’t mean that because it’s on wikipedia, wikipedia simply happens to have it right. From the moment you understand the word intrinsic, your “thesis” imediately falls apart. There’s no need for more arguments.
Just as side note, you shouldn’t trust every dictionary. I’ve seen portuguese dictionaries where you would find “doctrine of atheists” under atheism. Suffice to say, atheism is not a doctrine by any means but that’s just an example.
For the purposes of building a worldview you merely need to prove that your worldview is more probable than someone else’s. We humans need not obtain 100% certainty in order to be rational in our worldviews. Besides, you were trying to refute a moment ago, are you now giving up?
Here’s the fallacy you’re committing:
I say:
x is y
z has y
therefore z has x
You say
x is p
z does not have p
therefore z does not have x
The burden is on you to show that z does not have y. Till now, you’ve only shown that z does not have p, you haven’t shown that z does not y.
Giving up? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Just telling you that you can’t prove negatives.
The burden of proof is actually on you because you are the one making the claim. How can you twist things so badly?
Also, that lovely xzp example doesn’t illustrate my argument. I simply said there’s no such thing as intrinsic. Unless you believe there’s meaning and purpose in the universe, intrinsic properties cannot exist.
maybe so, maybe not - but i’m claiming that intrinsic value does not exist, even by your above definition - and that is more than a semantic quibble.