1 year ago
Vote to comment and see the results
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • a year ago

    Most people don’t say human life is invaluable.

    The first part is correct though. Because we’ve been raised in cultures that said human life matters, we have been programmed by society to believe human life matters.

    • a year ago

      @sharkb8 "Most people don’t say human life is invaluable."

      What will be your answer if i ask you whether human life is invaluable or it has some value? If you say human life not invaluable then I'm going to ask you to value different people's (you, me, einstein, bill gates, poor child in africa) life in dollars.

    • a year ago

      @mani_bharathy value is a human concept. It’s subjective. We decide for ourselves what to value.

    • a year ago

      @sharkb8 Yes it's subjective. I asked your subjective opinion

    • a year ago

      @mani_bharathy that’s not the topic. The topic was that:
      a. We implicitly act as if human life has value (correct, because of our social conditioning)
      b. We explicitly say human life is invaluable. (This is incorrect, since most people don’t say that).

    • a year ago

      @sharkb8 you say the second part is incorrect. I'm trying to prove that it is correct.

      How am I trying to prove that?

      I'm going to ask you the question "Do you think human life is invaluable?". If you say yes, that proves my case. If you say no, I'm going to ask you further questions in order to prove that your answer "no" to my question is inconsistent according to your view itself.

      Am I being clear on the line in which I'm proceeding? Shall we proceed with my question?

    • a year ago

      @mani_bharathy I am not most people. Unless you could prove that 67% of the people in the world say human life is valueless, you won’t have proven it.

    • 10 months ago


      "We explicitly say human life is invaluable. (This is incorrect, since most people don’t say that)."

      I got a better argument to prove that people do think and say that life is priceless. Say I'm offering someone money in exchange of their life. No one wants to give up their life no matter how big the money I offer. What it means? It means that people think/say that their life is priceless

    • 10 months ago

      @mani_bharathy You might be using a different version of the word "invaluable".

      When I read this resolution it looks to me like it's saying "we act like life matters even though we all say it doesn't." What is the resolution trying to say?

    • 10 months ago

      I think we both have different interpretations of the resolution.

      By invaluable I did not mean that the value is less, I mean that it is highly valuable. For example my grandmother's wedding ring is an invaluable possession of mine. By invaluable I mean that it is infinitly highly valuable so that you cant put a price on it.

    • 10 months ago

      @mani_bharathy gotcha. lol English makes no sense. I looked up the dictionary definition of invaluable and it appears you were using the word properly.

      But tbf, the word "invaluable" should mean "not valuable." The prefix "in" is supposed to negate the usual meaning of the word. Like validate vs. "invalidate".

    • 10 months ago

      @sharkb8 Ha ha. Yeah. I had the same problem when English calls flammable substance an inflammable substance

  • a year ago

    I didn't expect to find a wikipedia article on this, but it exists

    • a year ago

      I think using the word "Priceless" might be a better term rather than "Invaluable" Invaluable is generally used to mean, "highly valuable" or "something you can't do without." Rather than something so valuable you cannot put a reasonable price on it, aka, worth more than any amount of money.

      I think the idea plays into the notion that money is without real moral meaning. But that misses the fact that money just represents the value we humans ascribe to things.

      There are some things we certainly value above others. For instances, If I were asked if I would pay every cent I have to save my wife's life. The answer would be yes, absolutely. And I think no matter how much money I had, I'd still say yes. I simply love my wife more than everything else I own.

      But, if it was someone else, someone I didn't care so deeply for, then no. Say Trump was ransomed, and I was the only one willing to pay, I wouldn't pay all that much for him beyond what I thought I might be able to get him to pay me back. I'd pay something, just on the principle of being a fellow human being, but definitely not everything I own. More like, whatever "extra" money I might have lying around.

      • a year ago

        @sigfried Yes. "Priceless" is a better word.

        Say you have 100k in your bank, 100k in assets, 100k you can get from friends, 100k loan from banks. So you can give upto $400k in order to save your wife. Doesn't it mean that you value your wife at $400k, technically speaking ?

        I understand that tomorrow if you become a billionaire, you will be ready pay a billion dollars to save your wife. But today you are willing to pay only 400k. So can I say that today you value your wife at $400k?

        Even in the trump case, you are valuing him to some number (the amount you think you can get from him).

        Off topic : In fact, in trump's case you can even give a billion dollars to save him. because you can get it back from him once you saved him