1. Human life (consciousness, etc.) has value

2. Each human life, in a vacuum, is of equal value

3. The value of each human life is intrinsic, i.e. not based on human ideas/teachings, etc.

Question???

If the above statements are true (collectively) and/or you believe them to be true, how can any philosophy/religion/etc do anything but cause harm to human life?

I am aware this is simplistically stated...purposely.

My simplistic response is: the value of each human life is not 'intrinsic', nor is it 'based on' (although it is supported by) human ideas/teachings, etc. It is ultimately derived from/'created' by human perception. Certain philosophies (humanism) and religions (most non-extremist sects, IMO) can act as life-affirming buttresses to a preexisting (but inconsistent) human tendency to act 'morally'/empathetically towards other humans.

I am ultimately a nihilist because I doubt (actually, outright deny) the existence of independent/'intrinsic'/universal value. That said, I value human life because I can't really help but do so--as things currently stand psychologically, of course.

PS: username sounds familiar. PokerStars flashback?

We need to think 1, 2 and 3 for not getting Hitler.

Interesting take. On the one hand, you "outright deny" existence of intrinsic value. On the other hand, you say "I can't really help but do so.." in regards to seeing value in human life.

The contradictory thoughts/feelings? are common, I think. I do tend to lean the other way. While I am fascinated and encouraged by the myriad of thought-provoking questions and answers contained within philosophy and some, as you say, moderate religions/religious groups, I do hold that their is significant value within all life.

I agree, those philosophies and groups can be enriching and supportive, but also believe that wherever there is conflict, theoretical or physical (war, etc), the one sure way to step away from those conflicts is to accept the three premises in the op.

Was once on Stars, don't think I ever used "JibJab" but that was a long time ago. Can't say for sure. The "JibJab" refers to my writing more than anything and possibly a little bit to the fact that when I get even a little caffeine in my system I tend to babble.

^This is the very reason I posted the op. The world, I think, is seeing a resurgence of people/groups falling back, easily, to nationalism, racial identity, etc. and using this as a way to justify boorish, sometimes horrific acts.

Ironically, some of the same things seen as positives in religion, politics and philosophy can be used to encourage life-reaffirming acts, while at the same time be used to destroy human life. Using the three statements in the op as the base, and going back to the base when not sure would, I think, solve a lot of problems.

I feel this way because, I ultimately believe we, all living beings, create all of existence.

Our reality is created by human perception. Which doesn't need imply immaterialism (or solipsism or external world skepticism etc). The perceptions are the value, or sensations rather. It doesn't matter at all to matter what matters to us and why should that our govern philosophy in any meaningful way.

This is wrong, and two arguments to show that come to my mind:

1. Imagine a world with no life. How much value does a diamond have in that world? What about a rock? What about a 200lb nugget of gold?

2. If I was forced to choose between saving my life and saving your life I would choose to safe my life -> I value my life more than I value yours.

There are plenty more examples but I think this enough to show that your #3 as quoted above is incorrect, and couldn't be more incorrect than it is.

The only reason human life has value is b/c human life gives value to it.

You valuing your life more than the OPs does not argue in any way that his life hasn't intrinsic value.

Gold doesn't have intrinsic value, it only has the value that we currently project onto it.
If I feel better because I own gold, it's not the gold that has value, it's my feelings that have value. Therefore, we do not project value onto our actively conscious brains as we do with gold; the only core thing that has value is sentience.

I think you are starting with a conclusion and working backwards from there to make arguments that support it. That's my opinion at least. I mean I didn't walk the reader through the argument, I just gave some key points and examples and let the reader fill in the blanks.

It would be nice if life had some intrinsic value, but I don't think that is what the evidence shows. What the evidence shows is that nothing has or ever had value, and then we came along and gave some amount of value to some things and different amounts of value to other things, based on our likings and preferences which were given to us via evolution.

How can a world exist without life?

I don't know you, which lessens the chance that I might sacrifice my life for yours. I do, though, have some people in my life who I would gladly save before myself.

You seem to be venturing down the path of: Who gets to decide which lives have value? How much value? When do they have value?

These and other questions, the building blocks of religion, philosophy, politics and power, are the result of not taking, I think, the three statements in the op collectively as the base.

Created by all living things' thoughts, feelings, actions, interactions, etc.

Though, as Douglas Adams says...

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...las_adams.html

What matters to matter is a concern chiefly of rocks and stones; mostly because, ever since our human ancestors first picked-up a rock and used it as a weapon the rocks have never ceased blaming humans for giving them a bad reputation. (Courtesy of "JibJab" Use as you see fit)

That is a philosophical claim.

That is a philosophical claim

That is a philosophical claim.

That is a header

That is called jaq-ing.

Jaq-ing is pretty darn not ok.

Gads. Thread is on hold. Sorting out options.