What is Life Worth?

[ClayBarham]

What is life worth? Is individual life most valued for itself, or simply as a part of a community, a particular faith or an established culture? From recent history, we know that national and international socialists selected people to live or die based on their racial heritage, their social mindset and their willingness to do as told as a cog in their wheel. We know some religious beliefs include murdering infidels and non-believers. We know that modern liberals, not the 18th century classical liberal, value only a community, a society, as well as the elite selected to manage them. Freethinking and independent individuals are an unmanageable problem to them. Free individuals cannot coexist with drones. They are removed from the general population. Life has lost its value.

In New England, almost 400 years ago, men and women found an opportunity to establish a brand new social structure. They came to America unified in a belief in God, Jesus and sanctity of individual life. They left their old digs to escape persecution for their beliefs. They had no one but themselves to lean on in case of emergencies, and they had their share of those. They learned to stand on their own two feet, nurturing and protecting their families and helping their neighbors. Expressing their own individual self-interests, gave them a productive, happier and prosperous way to live when compared to the Old World they left. Each individual had greater worth as well as greater responsibility to family and community. They gave their hearts, minds and souls to their God, while at the same time, thinking and living out of the “box” that once inhibited them. From that, America grew to be a free and prosperous nation like no other on the earth. Justice was to protect individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They created a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all individuals are created equal. Individual life in America had greater value than community, which is comprised of individuals, thereby making all life of great worth.

It would appear that individual life has great value only to those steeped in a Judeo-Christian belief. From those beliefs rose laws respecting life and the product of life, and a community built more on love, justice and peace. Looking back over the centuries, as well as today, the other world ideologies, cultures and religions are steeped in murder and plunder. They create communities, which do not produce, are not prosperous, that seek to feed off the bones of those who are. Americans are a tolerant people, for the most part. They are now asked to tolerate those who seek to destroy our American culture of individual freedom and the sanctity of individual life. So, how do we answer the question, what is life worth? Should the answer be very little when compared to community? If so, your vote may answer it better than your words.

[Elrathin]

It would appear that individual life has great value only to those steeped in a Judeo-Christian belief.


It's BS like what you say here that you lose ALL credibility Clay. You are not a practicing psychologist that much is certain.

Now you are saying everyone that doesn't believe in religious values does not believe in the value of individual life? Gimme a break. Your comment shows you know nothing about human nature.

I am an agnostic that doesn't follow Judeo-Christian Belief fully and I have great value in individual life, in fact I vote for gay marriage ever chance I get. You know, two individuals that want to marry. Something you don't believe in and as such you do not believe in individual freedom.

[moses2792796]

When one reaches philosophical maturity it becomes obvious that the individual has no inherent value but is an integral part of a cosmic whole.

[Shintao]

What is life worth? It would appear that individual life has great value only to those steeped in a Judeo-Christian belief.

Hmm, seems the Christian belief is about community & caring for the masses, one dying on a cross for the whole - not the individual. Not sure what the jews belief system is, but any religion is socialist based, drawing together community, helping others using Faith based government charity, not sending out individuals to think and fend for themselves on godly and domestic issues. They all have to get together just to pray together every sunday, put staututes in public for all people to stare at so they feel secure until the next sunday gathering. The preacher is out going door to door to his folks, praying, collecting money and whatever else they do, sermons, weddings. I don't see anywhere the church values involve just one person.

[BillyPilgrim]

"In New England, almost 400 years ago, men and women found an opportunity to establish a brand new social structure."

No, they didn't. Why do you continue with this nonsense.

"They came to America unified in a belief in God, Jesus and sanctity of individual life."

Same as everyone in England at that time...they were no different from before they left or whom they left behind.

"They left their old digs to escape persecution for their beliefs."

Less than half the folks on Mayflower were of this church and they went to Holland to that end, not the New World.

"They had no one but themselves to lean on in case of emergencies, and they had their share of those. They learned to stand on their own two feet, nurturing and protecting their families and helping their neighbors."

As did every colonist everywhere. Nothing unique here.

"Expressing their own individual self-interests, gave them a productive, happier and prosperous way to live when compared to the Old World they left. Each individual had greater worth as well as greater responsibility to family and community."

They had no greater worth than when they left England. That you continue this idealistic crap about the founding of my town does these people injustice.

"They gave their hearts, minds and souls to their God, while at the same time, thinking and living out of the “box” that once inhibited them. From that, America grew to be a free and prosperous nation like no other on the earth."

There is no direct connection between the founding of Plimoth Colony and the USA. Englishmen came here for the glory of King and Country, NOT to found a new nation.

"Justice was to protect individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They created a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all individuals are created equal. Individual life in America had greater value than community, which is comprised of individuals, thereby making all life of great worth."

OMG! That's the Declaration of Independence... 156 years later. Please stop this, it's hogwash!

[ClayBarham]

What are your views on Vernon Parrington's works, Perry Millers work, Bancroft and even Peter Marshall's THE LIGHT AND THE GLORY. Are all of these right wing BS books?

[BillyPilgrim]

Clay,
I don't know their works so you'll have to quote them before I can refute them. I do, however, know well Bradford and Winslow.
It's all well and good to speculate and infer that somehow the Plymouth story had something to do with American democracy and its supposed manifest destiny...but it simply didn't.

Shintao,
You are simply deluded by your silly Marxist philosophy.

[Shintao]

Clay,
I don't know their works so you'll have to quote them before I can refute them. I do, however, know well Bradford and Winslow.
It's all well and good to speculate and infer that somehow the Plymouth story had something to do with American democracy and its supposed manifest destiny...but it simply didn't.

Shintao,
You are simply deluded by your silly Marxist philosophy.


I have already established in previous posts your inaccurate political bias interferring with reality, a delusional historic rewritting history for your own ends - like taking a sniplet from a full quote to make an illusional unfounded statement which was laughable.

Here Pilgrim, refute this with your twisted logic.

When the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower to establish the Plymouth Colony, they did so under the requirement that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed into the "common stock" of the colony and that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their provisions out of the common stock."

Sort of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"— Socialism.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1730530/posts

[ClayBarham]

Well, people like John Adams and george Bancroft sure attributed what we have as a product of their investment from their religious beliefs, but what do they know, right?

[Alonzo]

What is life worth?

Life is worth $5. You get in my way and prevent me from obtaining more than $5 worth of goods, money, or emotional benefits and I'll kill you on the spot with my trusty katana.

[Buck Laser]

Finally, I can credit Clay with something positive. He's cited some sources for his strange ideas about American history. I've done just a little research--enough to realize that the main sources he cites, Peter Marshall and Perry Miller, have a vested interest in claiming that the Puritans somehow represent the headwaters of American thought.

No doubt Miller and Parrington were serious scholars, but at this stage I doubt the legitimacy of Clay's projections and conclusions from their work. Frankly, I've seen nothing to refute my original impression that Clay's ideas come from his nether regions.

[BillyPilgrim]

"Here Pilgrim, refute this with your twisted logic.

When the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower to establish the Plymouth Colony, they did so under the requirement that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed into the "common stock" of the colony and that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their provisions out of the common stock."

Please. You use a Socialist site for secondary sources. I'm using primary sources. Each man fed his family out of what he grew. What was left was put into a common store for trading. Each was afforded, by the amount of shares of stock, his share of the reduction of debt incurred when they had to borrow money. Please read primary sources for the truth, not some socialist bushwa. You have no point.[hr]"Well, people like John Adams and george Bancroft sure attributed what we have as a product of their investment from their religious beliefs, but what do they know, right?"

Apparently it was too much for even them to consult primary sources. You also, have no point.[hr]"No doubt Miller and Parrington were serious scholars,..."

They may have been, but to somehow connect early English expansionism to American democracy is hogwash.

[Osborn F. Enready]

The value of life lies in living it, and we all value life differently.

Life without volitional choice is a "sentence", not a "gift" as true happiness could never be achieved. Reasonable, rational selfishness is required for "happiness", and these are subjectively individual values.

No one mans "happiness" is another mans "happiness", so no two men value life equally, when viewed critically.

[ClayBarham]

Osborn, you are citing Ayn Rand's view of "The Virtue of Selfishness," of course. I would rephrase it however to self-interest, a term which allows for the best of egoism and altruism, as a father's self-interest is the health and well-being of his family first, before his own. (Herbert Spencer tried navigating the road between both) Would you sacrifice your life for your spouse or child if need be? Selfisness might mean you would not, whereas self-interest means you may, as I think befitting most caring human beings. I favor Ayn Rand to a great extent, though I believe individual legitimate self-interest goes further to describe the ideal human, certainly not community interest, as community has no interests beyond that defined by an individual presuming to lead the community, say the king or dictator As to BillyPilgrim, his "primary sources" are probably Howard Zinn and other pro-Marxists writers who remanufacture history to suit, and they are the acceptable present day historians teachers rely on for their students. In thei arrogance, they dismiss anyone else, from earlier periods, who describe things they way they do not like. Even after the French Revolution, the Encyclopedists sought to alter history to conform to shaping the future, even to renaming the months of the calender. Any conservative on the front line has to expect and deal with those things and plow forth with the message of olden times.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Clay said:
Osborn, you are citing Ayn Rand's view of "The Virtue of Selfishness," of course. I would rephrase it however to self-interest, a term which allows for the best of egoism and altruism, as a father's self-interest is the health and well-being of his family first, before his own. (Herbert Spencer tried navigating the road between both) Would you sacrifice your life for your spouse or child if need be?

My own selfish values would place the value of my wife and child above my own life, yes.

Also, I wouldn't include the word altruism.

Clay said:
Selfisness might mean you would not, whereas self-interest means you may, as I think befitting most caring human beings.

Well, I am part of the fight against the modern interpretation of selfishness as being "something bad", regardless of context, as well as they claim "selflessness" is something good, regardless of context. I could have said it that way, but I didn't for a reason. I feel there is great value in rational selfishness. I don't believe in "selflessness" at all.

Clay said:
I favor Ayn Rand to a great extent, though I believe individual legitimate self-interest goes further to describe the ideal human, certainly not community interest, as community has no interests beyond that defined by an individual presuming to lead the community, say the king or dictator As to BillyPilgrim, his "primary sources" are probably Howard Zinn and other pro-Marxists writers who remanufacture history to suit, and they are the acceptable present day historians teachers rely on for their students. In thei arrogance, they dismiss anyone else, from earlier periods, who describe things they way they do not like. Even after the French Revolution, the Encyclopedists sought to alter history to conform to shaping the future, even to renaming the months of the calender. Any conservative on the front line has to expect and deal with those things and plow forth with the message of olden times.

Glad to hear you know of Rand, and have read some.

I am not interested in preserving "olden times", I am interested in preserving reason, rational selfishness, and individual sovereignty.

[BillyPilgrim]

"As to BillyPilgrim, his "primary sources" are probably Howard Zinn and other pro-Marxists writers who remanufacture history to suit,..."

And with this comment you confirm my opinion of you. I've sited my sources-Bradford and Winslow-but you are too obsessed...and I must suspect, stupid to actually read posts. I was hoping for intelligent debate on this forum. So far, I am underwhelmed.

[ClayBarham]

I have no interest at this time to read the rewrites of history that suit the needs of those who despise America. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I still admire America when compared to the rest of the world....so shame on me.

As to Ayn Rand, I have read her works and was once a subscriber to the Objectivists before Brandon walked off with it. I disagree with him and his wife and their focus on "Self-esteem," as opposed to self-worth. As a psychologist, I have never had much truck with their self-esteem stuff, as it relates purely to selfishness and not self-interest. In therapy, there is a difference, the latter term being broader in scope. But, yes, I do like Ayn Rand and I recently posted Roark's summation to the jury from Fountinhead. I am still a Christian, though.

[BillyPilgrim]

"I have no interest at this time to read the rewrites of history that suit the needs of those who despise America. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I still admire America when compared to the rest of the world....so shame on me."

If you were able to pull your head outta your butt you'd realize I agree with you here.

[preservanation]

What about David W. Loring, Ph.D.? http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/Children-and-Adolescents/showArticle.jhtml?checkSite=psychiatricTimes&articleID=171201519 There is a critical need for appropriate prospective long-term studies of AEDs and cognitions in different applications to determine which drugs and which factors may affect school performance and social adjustment during the school years. Treating children with AEDs associated with better neuropsychological outcomes will maximize school performance, decrease the need for special services in school, and increase quality of life for both patients and their families
HA!

[Shintao]

"Here Pilgrim, refute this with your twisted logic.

When the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower to establish the Plymouth Colony, they did so under the requirement that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed into the "common stock" of the colony and that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their provisions out of the common stock."

Please. You use a Socialist site for secondary sources. I'm using primary sources.

Freepers creepers is now a socialist site??? LMAO! Go tell them that Pilgrim!!! HAHAHAHA!!!:ecstatic::madlaugh:

Read it & Weap weasel! Where do they find these lying corn huskers anyway!! LMAO!!!:ecstatic:

Pastor of Pilgrims, John Robinson
p. 226
http://tinyurl.com/2g8gmt
:madlaugh:

[BillyPilgrim]

You seem not to be able to understand the idea of a stock company, a completely capitalist idea. Further you insist on using secondary sources when the primary ones are quite clear. Read Bradford.