The evolution of morality: The value of human life

So, I guess we’re really talking about how we value human life here.
Do you think our perspective on this has actually evolved at all? Like, back in the days of tribal warfare, life was probably worth next to nothing. People were dying every single day. Honestly, that seems to be how most of human history played out.

But then again, look at us now. We’re constantly surrounded by these "moralists" who make a huge scene whenever they feel someone's rights are being stepped on—take the abortion debate, for example, which, if you ask me, feels just as bad as murder.*

So, has our collective consciousness truly moved forward, or have we just put on a polite set of gloves to hide what we really are?
The daily news footage coming out of places like the Gaza Strip or Sudan doesn't exactly suggest that anything has changed. And don't even get me started on World War II.

What would even be the point of trying to increase the value placed on human life? Of course, valuing life is a pillar of modern democracy—I definitely don't want anyone thinking I'm an apologist for totalitarianism! Just please, try not to tie this too closely to specific political parties.

If you actually believe some kind of evolution has happened, where do you think we're headed? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone's heads lately, it feels like it might be pretty easy to slide right back to life before Chris, or maybe even something even worse.

I’m not sure if there’s already a thread for this, or if I’m using the best terminology, but I think we'll understand each other. This is such a heavy topic that I probably haven't expressed myself perfectly, but I think the core of the problem is pretty clear. I'd love to hear what you guys think.

I suppose some progress has been made. I won't dwell too much on how people act when circumstances bring out their absolute worst—war, for instance.

I’m primarily thinking about certain historical religious customs where it was considered perfectly acceptable to subject one of a ruler's concubines, or perhaps a slave or wife, to unimaginable suffering and eventually death, all while being honored for the purpose of joining their ruler in the afterlife.

Furthermore, I doubt we'd see this many Pride parades in American cities if anyone still thought it was a good idea to tie someone to two trees and mutilate them for their sexual orientation. All things considered, I'd say yes. We have progressed, I guess. Or "progressed"... if you want to call it that.

I guess we have actually made some progress, at least to a certain point. I won't really focus too much on how people act when they're pushed to their absolute limits by extreme circumstances—you know, basically during wartime.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure war will always bring out the absolute worst in people. Even though things have improved overall, I honestly feel like people today are capable of committing way worse atrocities against one another, just because modern civilization gives us the tools and the twisted opportunities to do it.

Also, I highly doubt you'd see this many Pride parades moving through American cities if it were still common practice to tie someone to two trees just because of who they love. All in all, I'd say yes. We've progressed, I think. Or "progressed"... if that's the word you want to use.

From what I gather, that intense crackdown on homosexuality was largely driven by Christianity; back in ancient civilizations, bisexuality was actually a pretty widespread thing. Some might call that decadence and say that's why those empires fell, but those are just the facts.

In the end, everything comes down to how we perceive humanity. That core understanding shapes almost everything about our society, including how we value a single human life.
That’s why most modern sociologists—and I mean the lower-tier ones, like the ones with just a Bachelor's degree, so I can't speak for actual scientists—always harp on about the "invaluable worth" of human life.
I once got into a debate with one of them, and I told them—and I really do believe this—that massive embezzlement or looting government funds is actually a far greater crime than killing one individual. Of course, they just stared at me like I was some kind of Nazi! I think the hypocrisy has gone way too far.

cosmicfox69 said:

I guess we have actually made some progress, at least to a certain point. I won't really focus too much on how people act when they're pushed to their absolute limits by extreme circumstances—you know, basically during wartime.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure war will always bring out the absolute worst in people. Even though things have improved overall, I honestly feel like people today are capable of committing way worse atrocities against one another, just because modern civilization gives us the tools and the twisted opportunities to do it.

Also, I highly doubt you'd see this many Pride parades moving through American cities if it were still common practice to tie someone to two trees just because of who they love. All in all, I'd say yes. We've progressed, I think. Or "progressed"... if that's the word you want to use.

From what I gather, that intense crackdown on homosexuality was largely driven by Christianity; back in ancient civilizations, bisexuality was actually a pretty widespread thing. Some might call that decadence and say that's why those empires fell, but those are just the facts.

In the end, everything comes down to how we perceive humanity. That core understanding shapes almost everything about our society, including how we value a single human life.
That’s why most modern sociologists—and I mean the lower-tier ones, like the ones with just a Bachelor's degree, so I can't speak for actual scientists—always harp on about the "invaluable worth" of human life.
I once got into a debate with one of them, and I told them—and I really do believe this—that massive embezzlement or looting government funds is actually a far greater crime than killing one individual. Of course, they just stared at me like I was some kind of Nazi! I think the hypocrisy has gone way too far.

Yeah, you're right. Christianity played the biggest role there.
That said, I think there are also historical records regarding certain peoples—I'm not entirely sure which ones—mostly from Eastern Europe or Western Asia, who treated homosexuals in that exact same way I mentioned.

cosmicfox69 said:

I guess we have actually made some progress, at least to a certain point. I won't really focus too much on how people act when they're pushed to their absolute limits by extreme circumstances—you know, basically during wartime.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure war will always bring out the absolute worst in people. Even though things have improved overall, I honestly feel like people today are capable of committing way worse atrocities against one another, just because modern civilization gives us the tools and the twisted opportunities to do it.

Also, I highly doubt you'd see this many Pride parades moving through American cities if it were still common practice to tie someone to two trees just because of who they love. All in all, I'd say yes. We've progressed, I think. Or "progressed"... if that's the word you want to use.

From what I gather, that intense crackdown on homosexuality was largely driven by Christianity; back in ancient civilizations, bisexuality was actually a pretty widespread thing. Some might call that decadence and say that's why those empires fell, but those are just the facts.

In the end, everything comes down to how we perceive humanity. That core understanding shapes almost everything about our society, including how we value a single human life.
That’s why most modern sociologists—and I mean the lower-tier ones, like the ones with just a Bachelor's degree, so I can't speak for actual scientists—always harp on about the "invaluable worth" of human life.
I once got into a debate with one of them, and I told them—and I really do believe this—that massive embezzlement or looting government funds is actually a far greater crime than killing one individual. Of course, they just stared at me like I was some kind of Nazi! I think the hypocrisy has gone way too far.

Hypocrisy really has gone too far, I suppose. I agree.
Still, I honestly don't know what to make of the other point. On one hand, you have a valid argument. The embezzlement of those funds could impact the lives and well-being of millions. From that perspective, it is a larger crime. But then again, I tend to view a human life as the ultimate value, so I'm not sure I can agree with you there. One is an abstraction, whereas a human life is... well, a human life. Plus, I guess it depends on the circumstances surrounding the "murder."🤷

Honestly, I’d go as far as calling it just a random elimination of one single person. Just imagine if some individual here in America passed away right this second. Sure, it would be a heartbreaking moment for their family and friends, no doubt about it.

On the flip side, let’s say some shady little "entrepreneur" out there swindled about $3 million away by overcharging people for their prescriptions. How much more impact could that money have if it was actually funneled into a local hospital? It wouldn't even be close—the benefit would be massive.

In general, I feel like mainstream opinion is just way too brainwashed. The group of people who actually think critically is, well, it's tiny. Like, painfully small. There are just too many people looking for a free ride, wanting all the perks and rights without ever taking on any of the responsibilities, you know? I guess that’s where upbringing and education really need to step in. Maybe if we focused more on those, combined with a bit of actual deep thinking, things might finally start to shift.

cosmicfox69 said:So, I guess we’re really talking about how we value human life here.
Do you think our perspective on this has actually evolved at all? Like, back in the days of tribal warfare, life was probably worth next to nothing. People were dying every single day. Honestly, that seems to be how most of human history played out.

But then again, look at us now. We’re constantly surrounded by these "moralists" who make a huge scene whenever they feel someone's rights are being stepped on—take the abortion debate, for example, which, if you ask me, feels just as bad as murder.*

So, has our collective consciousness truly moved forward, or have we just put on a polite set of gloves to hide what we really are?
The daily news footage coming out of places like the Gaza Strip or Sudan doesn't exactly suggest that anything has changed. And don't even get me started on World War II.

What would even be the point of trying to increase the value placed on human life? Of course, valuing life is a pillar of modern democracy—I definitely don't want anyone thinking I'm an apologist for totalitarianism! Just please, try not to tie this too closely to specific political parties.

If you actually believe some kind of evolution has happened, where do you think we're headed? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone's heads lately, it feels like it might be pretty easy to slide right back to life before Chris, or maybe even something even worse.

I’m not sure if there’s already a thread for this, or if I’m using the best terminology, but I think we'll understand each other. This is such a heavy topic that I probably haven't expressed myself perfectly, but I think the core of the problem is pretty clear. I'd love to hear what you guys think.

I wouldn't say it's evolved—meaning the "moral compass" itself hasn't shifted over the last hundred thousand years. It's stayed the same.
What *has* changed is the general attitude toward the value of life, driven by the rising standard of living we enjoy today.
History shows plenty of examples of tribal communities living in peace simply because they had enough resources to avoid fighting over them. When resources get scarce, the value of a human life hits rock bottom.

Assuming you believe some kind of evolution even occurred, where do we go from here? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone right now, it wouldn't be hard to slide back to pre-Chris times—or even worse.

If the value of life scales directly with our standard of living, then globally, we can probably expect to end up like the Scandinavian countries. 🤷

cosmicfox69 said:

I guess we have actually made some progress, at least to a certain point. I won't really focus too much on how people act when they're pushed to their absolute limits by extreme circumstances—you know, basically during wartime.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure war will always bring out the absolute worst in people. Even though things have improved overall, I honestly feel like people today are capable of committing way worse atrocities against one another, just because modern civilization gives us the tools and the twisted opportunities to do it.

Also, I highly doubt you'd see this many Pride parades moving through American cities if it were still common practice to tie someone to two trees just because of who they love. All in all, I'd say yes. We've progressed, I think. Or "progressed"... if that's the word you want to use.

From what I gather, that intense crackdown on homosexuality was largely driven by Christianity; back in ancient civilizations, bisexuality was actually a pretty widespread thing. Some might call that decadence and say that's why those empires fell, but those are just the facts.

In the end, everything comes down to how we perceive humanity. That core understanding shapes almost everything about our society, including how we value a single human life.
That’s why most modern sociologists—and I mean the lower-tier ones, like the ones with just a Bachelor's degree, so I can't speak for actual scientists—always harp on about the "invaluable worth" of human life.
I once got into a debate with one of them, and I told them—and I really do believe this—that massive embezzlement or looting government funds is actually a far greater crime than killing one individual. Of course, they just stared at me like I was some kind of Nazi! I think the hypocrisy has gone way too far.

I don't see how anything can be worse than murder—at least from the perspective of the victim, if that makes any sense.

In a debate with someone once, I argued that massive embezzlement—basically looting the federal treasury—is actually a far greater crime than killing an individual. They looked at me like I was some kind of monster. Hypocrisy has really gone too far, in my opinion.

That definitely depends on your perspective. It's hard to argue there's some absolute scale for what constitutes a "greater" crime.

So, this is where we hit that classic clash between looking out for yourself versus looking out for the group.
Even though I’m usually a big believer in the individualist approach, I guess you could argue that the smartest move is whatever works best for the most people. If we follow that logic, maybe it means that the absolute worst thing would be whatever causes the most harm to the greatest number of folks.

cosmicfox69 said:So, this is where we hit that classic clash between looking out for yourself versus looking out for the group.
Even though I’m usually a big believer in the individualist approach, I guess you could argue that the smartest move is whatever works best for the most people. If we follow that logic, maybe it means that the absolute worst thing would be whatever causes the most harm to the greatest number of folks.

True, but I don't think embezzling money from the masses is the ultimate evil. At least, not in my book. If we can agree that your own life is your most precious asset (and I assume we can), then the point is pretty clear. We shouldn't compare apples to oranges here. As we've established many times before, financial fraud doesn't necessarily threaten the existence of an individual or a group. Murder, however, certainly does.

Honestly, I think it all just comes down to personal opinion. In this case, just like so many other things, there really isn't a right or wrong way to look at it.

placidranger said:I wouldn't say it's evolved—meaning the "moral compass" itself hasn't shifted over the last hundred thousand years. It's stayed the same.
What *has* changed is the general attitude toward the value of life, driven by the rising standard of living we enjoy today.
History shows plenty of examples of tribal communities living in peace simply because they had enough resources to avoid fighting over them. When resources get scarce, the value of a human life hits rock bottom.

Assuming you believe some kind of evolution even occurred, where do we go from here? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone right now, it wouldn't be hard to slide back to pre-Chris times—or even worse.

If the value of life scales directly with our standard of living, then globally, we can probably expect to end up like the Scandinavian countries. 🤷

Totally agree!
A parent gives a damn about their kid, and a kid cares about their parents, and yeah, maybe a tiny circle of people you actually love or have skin in the game with, but once you step outside that bubble, just forget it.

Every single day someone dies or gets caught in some tragedy, and to us, it’s just another headline on the news that we shrug off without a second thought. A neighbor passes away... oh, my God... that’s basically how we process it, right?

There are so many of us on this planet, new lives pop up constantly, lives get snuffed out just as easily... so where's the big deal? Where's the evolution in all that?

silverraven7 said:Totally agree!
A parent gives a damn about their kid, and a kid cares about their parents, and yeah, maybe a tiny circle of people you actually love or have skin in the game with, but once you step outside that bubble, just forget it.

Every single day someone dies or gets caught in some tragedy, and to us, it’s just another headline on the news that we shrug off without a second thought. A neighbor passes away... oh, my God... that’s basically how we process it, right?

There are so many of us on this planet, new lives pop up constantly, lives get snuffed out just as easily... so where's the big deal? Where's the evolution in all that?

I guess it’s exactly that abundance—the sheer ease with which life begins and ends—that makes it feel almost casual sometimes. While I was typing this very sentence, someone, somewhere, lost their life, and another child was aborted. It feels like all sense of importance just kind of evaporates in the face of that, unfortunately.

.. there’s just nothing left .. some kind of moral compass .. beforehand ..
.. human connection and respect for one another has fluctuated wildly throughout history .. honestly, it was much better back then than it is today ..
.. what matters right now is this .. people are becoming isolated individuals .. lacking any real love for each other .. even within families, between parents and their children ..

.. there’s just no such thing .. some kind of built-in morality .. beforehand ..

I totally agree! It seems like society is what really defines what's right or wrong. Like, standalone morality? I guess it doesn't really exist on its own.

.. human connection and respect for others has been all over the place throughout history .. sometimes even way better than it is today ..

Maybe it's because there are just so many more distractions nowadays that people can basically "bow down" to,
and honestly, that probably makes our relationships with each other even worse.

.. what matters most today is this .. people are becoming totally isolated individuals .. lacking love for one another .. even between parents and their kids ..

Though, we shouldn't go too far with idealizing the past either. Sure, maybe back in a tiny rural town a hundred years ago, family bonds were tighter, but I guess that was mostly because they had to rely on each other to survive. They didn't have all the stuff we have now that gets in the way of that old-school solidarity.

.. yeah .. it all comes down to .. the factors at play .. then and now .. .. there’s really very little room left for .. idealization or romance ..

.. the question of morality might actually be tied to the concept of strength ..
.. which implies that only the strong can truly afford to be moral .. perhaps because they aren't threatened by doing the right thing .. or maybe just because they simply don't care about the consequences ..
.. following that logic .. people who constantly sacrifice themselves for others at their own expense aren't being moral .. they're just being weak -- and they'll never quite forgive themselves for it ..

cosmicfox69 said:Honestly, I’d go as far as calling it just a random elimination of one single person. Just imagine if some individual here in America passed away right this second. Sure, it would be a heartbreaking moment for their family and friends, no doubt about it.

On the flip side, let’s say some shady little "entrepreneur" out there swindled about $3 million away by overcharging people for their prescriptions. How much more impact could that money have if it was actually funneled into a local hospital? It wouldn't even be close—the benefit would be massive.

In general, I feel like mainstream opinion is just way too brainwashed. The group of people who actually think critically is, well, it's tiny. Like, painfully small. There are just too many people looking for a free ride, wanting all the perks and rights without ever taking on any of the responsibilities, you know? I guess that’s where upbringing and education really need to step in. Maybe if we focused more on those, combined with a bit of actual deep thinking, things might finally start to shift.

The mainstream definitely brainwashes millions, and honestly, we can't even fully escape the allure of modern life, but I don't think the value of a human life belongs to "mainstream opinion." One of the foundational principles of any ethics system I've studied—which is why it's so complicated—is that another person's life is our highest value. An innocent life should be protected regardless of the consequences. There's no room for "practicality" here. Would you personally look that person in the eye and decide they need to die? Sure, in your hypothetical scenario, it might save more people in the short term. But that kind of logic—"I'll be practical and sacrifice one person for the greater good"—leads straight to decadence. It starts with sacrificing one, then moves to five, then ten, always claiming "but we saved so many," until morality just hits rock bottom.

Kenneth Brown8 said:The mainstream definitely brainwashes millions, and honestly, we can't even fully escape the allure of modern life, but I don't think the value of a human life belongs to "mainstream opinion." One of the foundational principles of any ethics system I've studied—which is why it's so complicated—is that another person's life is our highest value. An innocent life should be protected regardless of the consequences. There's no room for "practicality" here. Would you personally look that person in the eye and decide they need to die? Sure, in your hypothetical scenario, it might save more people in the short term. But that kind of logic—"I'll be practical and sacrifice one person for the greater good"—leads straight to decadence. It starts with sacrificing one, then moves to five, then ten, always claiming "but we saved so many," until morality just hits rock bottom.

Maybe my example about embezzlement was super cliché, but man, it's hard for me to "buy into" that way of thinking. Even though the way we're raised and our whole system of values pushes us toward that kind of logic.
With all the ways life gets devalued every single day—everything from abortion to murder—it's seriously tough for me to stick to that logic. It feels like such a massive hypocrisy; everyone talks about equality and the sanctity of life, yet those exact things get trampled all the time.
Still, I sort of feel like taking individual value as the absolute foundation for all of ethics might be overkill. Like, why is it at the core of everything, as you put it?
Maybe it's this: a person wants the same treatment for themselves, so they give it to others to get it back?
Or maybe it comes from deeper, more humanistic ideas—something spiritual about humans, or just the fact that life is fleeting and unique, so we want to protect it? It's pretty wild how you can look at it from two totally opposite sides—like Abrahamic religions versus atheist existentialism—and end up at the exact same place: a consensus on the value of human life. Actually, I think existentialism emphasizes it even more!
Of course, there could be a third way to reach that conclusion too...
On an individual level, most of us probably hold onto those "foundations" of valuing the individual, but globally, those rules are broken systematically all the time. I'd say a person is truly themselves only when they are alone (not talking about socialization, obviously)—that's when their best self really shows up. In a crowd, people just become anonymous and sort of "get lost" in the herd.
Then again, strict social norms can easily "shape" a person and "keep them in line," just because society demands it...

The more I dive into philosophy, the more ambivalent I feel... I mean, there seems to be a solid argument for almost everything... and that definitely makes making decisions a real nightmare. 😁

.. what’s being quoted here... first... there’s the value of a human life... then... another human life as the ultimate value... and finally... an innocent life...

.. and the first point...
.. good people defend every single life... God forbid you'd kill someone like Hitler... unlike God, who burned Sodom to the ground...
.. along with that... isn't this just ideology? isn't this just tailored to suit this world?

.. the second point...
.. someone might be willing to kill—and if it were during a war, everyone would say "great"—but in combat, you’d be killing someone just as innocent as yourself... all for the sake of America or some other nation, or religion, or any similar nonsense... or just for the money of some corrupt bastards...
.. yet, I have a list of names... people who would be dead within five seconds if it were up to me... and I consider that highly moral... actually... divinely moral...
.. that means... I... have made the decision... it means a law has been created within me... it means the reasons have been weighed a thousand times over... it means those on my list cease to be human to me... and the whole situation doesn't even require an outside judge...
.. when I think about them... and their actions... I see the cursed seeds they've sown in so many situations... sure, it’s always possible that you don't know something fully, or you misinterpret things... but when I come back to myself and try to find some sort of justification... I just laugh... if it ever depended on me... they're dead...

cosmicfox69 said:Maybe my example about embezzlement was super cliché, but man, it's hard for me to "buy into" that way of thinking. Even though the way we're raised and our whole system of values pushes us toward that kind of logic.
With all the ways life gets devalued every single day—everything from abortion to murder—it's seriously tough for me to stick to that logic. It feels like such a massive hypocrisy; everyone talks about equality and the sanctity of life, yet those exact things get trampled all the time.
Still, I sort of feel like taking individual value as the absolute foundation for all of ethics might be overkill. Like, why is it at the core of everything, as you put it?
Maybe it's this: a person wants the same treatment for themselves, so they give it to others to get it back?
Or maybe it comes from deeper, more humanistic ideas—something spiritual about humans, or just the fact that life is fleeting and unique, so we want to protect it? It's pretty wild how you can look at it from two totally opposite sides—like Abrahamic religions versus atheist existentialism—and end up at the exact same place: a consensus on the value of human life. Actually, I think existentialism emphasizes it even more!
Of course, there could be a third way to reach that conclusion too...
On an individual level, most of us probably hold onto those "foundations" of valuing the individual, but globally, those rules are broken systematically all the time. I'd say a person is truly themselves only when they are alone (not talking about socialization, obviously)—that's when their best self really shows up. In a crowd, people just become anonymous and sort of "get lost" in the herd.
Then again, strict social norms can easily "shape" a person and "keep them in line," just because society demands it...

The more I dive into philosophy, the more ambivalent I feel... I mean, there seems to be a solid argument for almost everything... and that definitely makes making decisions a real nightmare. 😁

Every ethical framework I've come across starts with the value of human life. However, they are "intertwined" in the following sense:

1. Society has no right to demand that an individual sacrifice themselves "for the sake of the many."
2. An individual should strive to be as "moral" as possible.
3. If a crisis occurs where point (1) becomes relevant, the moral choice should belong to the individual. They should decide whether to "sacrifice" themselves independently of society or social pressure (and I don't mean ritual sacrifices or suicide, but a conscious decision to endure harm for the benefit of others).

Unfortunately, we live in an era where anything that isn't illegal is considered "moral," and sometimes even breaking the law is tolerated if it doesn't trigger public outcry. We need to realize once and for all that the law has nothing to do with morality.