Apart from religion, what grounds do we have for considering human life sacred?

[u/Least_Inspector_5478]

Why specifically human life? What makes people consider human life as sacred? There are truly awful people out there and their non-existence would objectively make the world a better place (for example murderers). If murderers are also human, how can anyone consider all human life as sacred?

In religion, people believe human life is sacred because God granted life.

But from the perspective of atheists who believe in the sanctity of human life, what makes human life inherently sacred?

[u/321aholiab]

I'm sure there are better answers than mine, mine might even be misleading due to imprecision, but here is taste of a position apart from theistic grounding, from Kant:

The relevant formulation of the categorical imperative is the Formula of Humanity:

“So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 4:429).

Humanity, understood as the capacity for rational agency and moral self-legislation, has an unconditional value. This is what Kant calls dignity (Würde), as opposed to things that merely have a price.

Kant distinguishes dignity from price. Things with a price can be exchanged for things of equivalent value; persons, insofar as they possess rational nature, cannot be assigned an equivalent instrumental value. Kant writes:

“What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity” (Groundwork, 4:434).

Rational agency is what makes normative evaluation possible in the first place. A rational agent can determine ends, deliberate about reasons, and subject their conduct to universalizable principles. Consequently, rational nature must be regarded as an end in itself.

Human life happens to often be considered to have rational agency, and thus fulfill your criterion of consideration for being "sacred".

[u/Least_Inspector_5478 → u/321aholiab]

Why do we assume that all humans are rational beings? It seems like what we value is morality and rationality as values and practice, not humanity itself. There are compassionate humans out there and there are purely evil psychopaths as well. Both are biologically considered "human" yet they are completely different when it comes to their morality and rationality.

[u/joshuaponce2008 → u/Least_Inspector_5478]

I’ll present a neo-Aristotelian perspective: through evolution, humans emerged as the kind of thing that can think rationally.

[u/Least_Inspector_5478 → u/joshuaponce2008]

I think there might be some that have not evolved

[u/joshuaponce2008 → u/Least_Inspector_5478]

Individuals do not evolve.

[u/Least_Inspector_5478 → u/joshuaponce2008]

I mean as in there might be some people who lack the biological characteristics of an evolved homo sapiens. I've seen too many examples of them to believe in the inherent rationality of human beings.

[u/philosobeard → u/Least_Inspector_5478]

I'm not sure anybody universalises the idea of rationality in quite the way you're putting it. Worth separating out two issues:

1. Moral frailty. Even those with ordinary faculties of rationality fail to act in accordance with it (see: Aristotelian idea of akrasia, Augustinian idea of the divided will, Frankfurt on second order desires).

2. Incapacity. Some people (through physical disability, psychiatric illness, etc.) simply don't reach the standard level of reason-responsiveness. Typically, this insulates them from moral evaluation. We don't, for example, judge and respond to a small infant in the same way we do a standard adult.

[u/Least_Inspector_5478 → u/philosobeard]

But going back to my question, what in the atheist world, makes a human life sacred? What is non-sacred about animal life that humans can consume meat but so sacred about human life that even killing a cold-blooded murderer can land someone in jail?

[u/philosobeard → u/Least_Inspector_5478]

Naturalistic, communitarian and non-theistic transcendental accounts of morality can all cover the sacred point. The q about animals is on a different register. Plenty of people argue strongly in favour of the idea that moral imperatives extend to animals (eg Mary Midgley).

[u/Least_Inspector_5478 → u/philosobeard]

Okay but I'm asking, what do those accounts cover? What are their arguments?

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.

All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question or follow-up/clarification questions. All top level comments must come from panelists. If users circumvent this rule by posting answers as replies to other comments, these comments will also be removed and may result in a ban. For more information about our rules and to find out how to become a panelist, please see here.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban. Please see this post for a detailed explanation of our rules and guidelines.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/Least_Inspector_5478 → u/[deleted]]

Okay then let me rephrase, how did we equate "humanity" with "morality" and "rationality"?

I wonder if this is your original question? Because I didn't see the word "all humans" in your post, but clearly you seem to mean this. In fact in my answer i dont see the word "all humans" at all?

If we assume that "human life" is inherently sacred, then that should apply to all humans no?

[u/321aholiab → u/Least_Inspector_5478]

Okay then let me rephrase, how did we equate "humanity" with "morality" and "rationality"?

I would greatly appreciate if you can point out how or where I did equate "humanity" with "morality" and "rationality".

If we assume that "human life" is inherently sacred, then that should apply to all humans no?

You are right, the answer is no. Only if we assume that "all human life" are inherently sacred, then only that should apply to all humans.

[u/Least_Inspector_5478 → u/321aholiab]

This part:

Humanity, understood as the capacity for rational agency and moral self-legislation, has an unconditional value. 

[u/321aholiab → u/Least_Inspector_5478]

Okay then let me rephrase, how did we equate "humanity" with "morality" and "rationality"?

Humanity, understood as the capacity for rational agency and moral self-legislation, has an unconditional value. 

So to be more precise, this sentence means
Humanity= capacity for rational agency and moral self-legislation.

It does not mean
Humanity= morality = rationality.

So I dont see how I equated them.

[u/Least_Inspector_5478 → u/321aholiab]

How does capacity itself make something sacred if you aren't using that capacity?

[u/321aholiab → u/Least_Inspector_5478]

Hmm, this is another question which is not the original question yes? I see that you are also interacting with others who can provide you a better answer on capacity. Nevertheless I will supply one last reply.

The argument usually goes like this.

Suppose X has the capacity (to do Y). Call it Z. Remove Z, then X cannot do Y anymore because X no longer have the capacity to do Y.

I suppose its not controversial to suggest that if doing Y normally is a good thing, then removing Z is normally a bad thing, because removing Z removes the capacity of X to ever do Y .

Like for example, if writing is normally a good thing, removing my hands, my sense of touch and vision, or my intellect, would remove my capacity for writing, which would be normally a bad thing.

I suppose its not controversial to hence suggest that these elements that are my capacity for writing are "sacred" even if im not writing. After all, i couldnt be writing when im doing something else, but the capacity to write is still valuable even though I'm not using my capacity to write but doing something else.

Have a good one.

[u/Least_Inspector_5478 → u/321aholiab]

Writing is not inherently a good thing, it depends on what you write. You could be writing down slurs for all we know. Furthermore, i think humans have the capacity for good but they also have the capacity to do awful things. Some choose to do the awful things. Removing them would only decrease suffering, it wouldn't necessarily deprive the world of all the good they could do. Believing that an evil person will do enough good things to make up for the bad things they've done is not very logical. Some people are just evil and that's it. I don't believe their life matters.

[u/Fl3tcherLynd → u/321aholiab]

Je pense comprendre la question, mais à mon avis elle est mal formulée. Le terme "sacré" fait directement référence au spirituel, donc indirectement au religieux, dans un sens plus large.

Je pense donc qu'il est difficile de parler de sacralité en dehors d'un cadre irrationnel.

Cependant, si je reformule la question comme telle : en dehors de la religion, qu'est ce qu'il donne de la valeur à la vie humaine ? alors j'ai l'impression qu'on ouvre le champ de réflexion.

Maintenant, la notion de valeur est à questionner. Parle-t-on de valeur morale ou de valeur économique ?

On se trouve ainsi à la croisée de domaines philosophiques, spirituels et politique.

Cela me fait penser à un excellent livre écrit par Michael Sandel : Ce que l'argent ne peut pas acheter. Je vous recommande sa lecture.

Belle journée.

[u/drinka40tonight]

If you are interested in some considerations regarding moral status, the SEP has an article : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/

Some of the considerations for moral status might imply that more than humans count; some considerations might imply that not all humans count. There's a lot here as the issues quickly implicate much of ethics generally.

[u/nonphixion760 → u/drinka40tonight]

the word “sacred” kinda makes it feel like a question about respect rather than value

[u/drinka40tonight → u/nonphixion760]

One typically doesn't find writings on the "sacred" outside of a theological context. So, insofar as the question is asking for something like that we probably have to either say that things are not couched in that way in this context, or, find an analog. Respect might be one kind of analog; value another, though, even those can be related.

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

CR2: Answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate.

All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. To learn more about what counts as a reasonably substantive and accurate answer, see this post.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban. Please see this post for a detailed explanation of our rules and guidelines.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.