The moral value of a human life is not to be measured by its viability.
Perhaps this is because Collins is less than clear in his publicly stated convictions about the metaphysics and
moral value of human life.
Not exact matches
The lesson to be learned is to stop imposing
human moral values on nature and to
live as part
of the ecosystem in such a way that the whole flourishes.
Pew reports that «in their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans
of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation
of human life and less prone to see Hollywood as threatening their
moral values.
We
live in an age whose chief
moral value has been determined, by overwhelming consensus, to be the absolute liberty
of personal volition, the power
of each
of us to choose what he or she believes, wants, needs, or must possess; our culturally most persuasive models
of human freedom are unambiguously voluntarist and, in a rather debased and degraded way, Promethean; the will, we believe, is sovereign because unpremised, free because spontaneous, and this is the highest good.
Many
of its adherents refuse to acknowledge the sanctity and equality
of human life, instead taking the so - called «quality
of life» approach, which determines the
moral value of each organism — whether
human, animal, or plant — by measuring its individual cognitive capacities.
Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro Carambula, the director
of the Rome office
of Human Life International, told LifeSiteNews «that the banning
of bullfighting in Spain... even as [the government promotes] abortion, represents a triumph
of newly invented
moral values based on arbitrary «progressive» whims and social fads.»
Babies — even those with dire prospects — are precious
human beings whose
lives have intrinsic dignity and inherent
moral value beyond that
of any nonhuman.
It was recognized that «religious traditions have a unique contribution to offer... particularly in emphasizing
human values and the spiritual and
moral dimension
of economic and political
life.»
«Indeed, the reality
of the
human being for the entire span
of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in
moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status.
Faced with these wonderful facts
of human life (charity, beauty, etc), evolutionary reductivists default to subjectivity, assume that our impressions
of value are illusory and see
moral reasoning as a sophisticated mechanism to get what we really want (a free decoder ring to anyone who, without laughing, can explain my Petco experience in these terms).
Organized religions have helped to keep
moral values high, to provide high goals
of living, to create dissatisfaction with anything less than almost a perfect
human being.
21 (12, 15 - 17), 22 (19 f.), and 31 (15b) but thought to be an original and ancient unit, in which series the death penalty is assigned when comparable offenses in other codes are less drastically punished.13 But the death penalty in these cases serves generally to underline the
moral and religious seriousness
of the covenant community, and in the Israelite scale it in no wise conflicts with the pattern
of law which places
human life above all other
values save two: the sacredness
of family and the integrity
of Yahweh.
Science itself is incapable
of making
moral judgments and it is not really too wild a step
of the imagination to think
of a situation where scientific knowledge is
valued more highly than
human lives.
So the
moral and ethical challenge is to somehow reintroduce
values into the technological, and thus political, contextualizing
of processed images, to restore the dissected and desiccated token to the water
of life, to the
moral universe, the real world which permits us to be truly
human.
As Americans in a pluralistic society, however, we must create a milieu for
moral decision - making that is somewhere between
value conferred by intention or relation alone, and the abstract mystical fetishism that deifies the substance
of human life in and
of itself.
The research showed that
moral decisions in the con?ned scope
of unavoidable traffic collisions can be explained well, and modeled, by a single
value -
of -
life for every
human, animal, or inanimate object.
To what extent do you view your investing
life as an extension
of your personal
life?By that I mean to what extent do the personal
morals and ethical
values of Tim the man govern the investing decisions
of Tim the dividend growth investor?If you ask your typical dividend growth investor if they would be willing to invest in a lucrative but immoral venture, say selling child pornography or crack cocaine, the answer would probably be «absolutely not» regardless
of the yield, valuation or growth prospects
of the underlying venture.And yet, ask that same investor what their thoughts are about Phillip Morris and they would probably describe what a wonderful investment it is and go on about why you should own it.Do your personal
morals ever come into play when buying companies, or do you compartmentalize your conscience, wall it off from the part
of your brain that thinks about investments, and make your investing decisions based on the financial prospects
of the company?The reason why I'm asking is that I keep identifying stocks
of companies that I love from an investing perspective but despise on a
human level.I can not in good conscience own any piece
of Phillip Morris knowing the impact that smoking related illness has on the families
of smokers.You might say that the smoker made his choice to smoke so you don't mind taking his money, but his children never made that choice and they are the ones who will suffer when he dies 20 years too soon.
The face
value of life insurance policies must not exceed
human life value of the insured, otherwise the indemnity principle would be violated, creating
moral hazard.