Wrong, @skado, wrong.

1 ) Nowhere in your comment do you set your personal interests aside.
2 ) You take his I do not believe that the individual life of a person has an absolute and intrinsic value and generalize his “of a person” to your “all human life”.
3 ) He states a necessary hypothesis, and you again generalize, ignoring his “temporarily” and “in an exceptional situation”.
Finally, he closes with I know that such a thing is impossible in my country (Germany) for historical reasons, but what are the general (philosophical) arguments against it? and your personal judgments make general arguments against his hypothesis impossible.

@yvilletom
Your “Wrong, @skado, wrong” supports a conclusion that at least you (but in truth many):
1 ) attach the label “wrong” to what they dislike, and
2 ) attach the label “right” to what they like.
Both words, to the degree they influence others, serve political purposes.

@skado Aw-ww, you didn’t understand.

Copying is a way to give praise. Thank you.

@Matias
The question, "Does X have value?" is only half a question. It isn't a whole question until "to whom" is added. Without a valuer, no value can exist.

If a valuer at the presumed top of the hierarchy does not exist, then the potential for value doesn't cease to exist; it just defaults to the next level down in the hierarchy.

In a free society, the next highest valuer is societal consensus, as established by law.

So without gods to dictate law, we default to reason, philosophy, and consensus.

The philosophical justification for assigning equal value to all human life is very simple.

What goes around, comes around.

Two examples:
A. Those who are young now, will be old later. If you don't want your own life cut short when you get old, you don't do that to others when you are young.
B. The next virus might strike young people. If you don't want old people murdering you for expedience when you're young, you don't set the precedent of murdering them for expedience when they're old.

In free societies, the Golden Rule is universally accepted by a majority to be rational and fair.

So yes, a society could... if it could. But it usually can't where it is free to decide by consensus, and outliers are bound by law.

@Matias
Yes, societal consensus is a fiction. Like all ideals, it will never be realized fully and perfectly. But if you go throwing out all ideals simply because they cannot be realized perfectly, then you must do away with all law, and civilization itself. Civilization is a fiction. It's one most of us want to keep. I do think some plausible arguments for abandoning civilization could be made, but I don't think they're as strong as the arguments for keeping it. And fiction or no... a majority seem to prefer it.

Nobody is afraid to die in the future, because the future isn't now. But very few are willing to die right now, if they can be made healthy again. Deliberately withholding life-saving treatment has the same effect as active killing - a person who could have lived is now dead because of a decision someone else made against their will. The test would be to make it voluntary, and see how many volunteer. I would have no philosophical objection to a voluntary program.

As Wimpy said, "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." Of course you would agree today to be euthanized when you're old, but you have no way of knowing how you will feel about it when the day arrives. No one does. It's not possible. You may guess, and you may guess right, but you have no way to know. If you are to apply the Golden Rule authentically, you must agree to allow a stranger, or small group of strangers to arbitrarily decide the time of your death (at any age) without your consent, based on what they deem expedient for the society at large.

If an individual happens to be willing to die an unnecessary death at 75 it is no test of the Golden Rule; some 14 year-olds take their own life. But it's rare to non-existent for a healthy person to want to die right now if they have a choice. If they are suffering they may be ready to go, but bring them back to health first and then ask them. Or proactively ask all 80yos who are healthy if they will volunteer for euthanasia today "to give society more freedom." I would not have a philosophical argument with that. My issue is doing it without consent of the patient at the time it is to happen.

You don’t mention the cost of coverage to non-consenting taxpayers. Is it a factor in your analysis?

@yvilletom Taxpayers in a representative democracy (or any system of government for that matter, short of a hypothetical ideal of voluntary participation) never consent to every use to which their taxes are put. That's the nature of the beast. The goal is, or should be, the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number.

@yvilletom Define "non-consenting taxpayer".

I have no children in school - should I pay school taxes? I don't care if my house burns down - I have insurance. Should I pay taxes for to the fire department? As listed above, taxes are for the general good. If you don't like paying one of the taxes because you don't like it, that is basically too bad, because in the overall scheme the taxes pay to better society.

I want to pay taxes. I want educated children. I want fire protection, police protection, road maintenance and all the other things covered in taxes. Hell, I'd double my taxes if I could get universal health care and free college education for everyone. That would make the U.S. a MUCH better place to live.

@AtheistInNC For schools I am a consenting taxpayer.
For maintenance of church buildings I am a non-consenting taxpayer and I cooperate with people who litigate to stop this use of my taxes.

That's a bit bigoted, isn't it? You wouldn't think of saying "Why does this keep coming up from [gays, blacks, POC, etc.]" now, would you?

@AtheistInNC If you had more than 3 Russians asking the same question then you too can sound bigoted by asking why do Russians keep asking about this. My step mother is German and I lived there the summer of 1973 in Bad Connstatt.

@Gwendolyn2018 so the title of this group is philosophy and meaning?

@Gwendolyn2018

Which guy? I hope not the opening poster, who stated a hypothesis.

@Matias
"value exists only by human beings for other human beings." is not the whole picture. Value exists by human beings for other human beings, and by human beings for themselves. Respecting human life universally can be seen as self-interest, because law is heavily dependent on precedent. If your group is able to pass a law that devalues the lives in another group, then it sets a precedent for the other group to do the same to your group. This is not deep or complicated. It is the simplest of ethical problems to solve. Don't do to others what you aren't happy for them to do to you.

You omit a relevant point, which the OP makes clear—the cost of intensive medical care.to non-consenting taxpayers.

Your reason is?

@yvilletom My own.

The existence of a god is recognised by virtually everyone and is therefore absolute. That the world was flat was recognised by virtually everyone and so therefore was absolute. You can see where I'm going with this? I don't disagree with your thesis that all individuals have value though.

Do not use the modifier “virtually” when you want to state an absolute.

@Cyklone The first sentence of your reply is an assumption, and questioned by many articles over the past few years. Your second sentence is simply wrong. Even if 100% of people thought the world was flat, that does not make the world flat. The only absolute is the thinking.

No, I really don't see where you are going.

@Alienbeing You state the obvious, they're bullshit statements and it was written to demonstrate exactly that. Now read it in the context of the post it was in response to.

@Cyklone I don't see a context.

I agree. Atheism has nothing to do with attributing value to human life. Saying as much is a causal fallacy.

@Matias I disagree. All living things have intrinsic value, not based on god but on survival of the species. The whole concept or purpose of life is survival and in order to survive it requires an minimum assessed value that cannot change. The perception of god as an enhancer to that value (humans chosen above other animals) is not real, merely perceived, but the initial value is constant.

@Matias

If we humans decide that our lives have intrinsic value, then so it is, they do. Opinions can change as you mentioned, but right now, the vast majority would agree that a human life has value regardless of circumstances.

Please, make it stop. I am getting laugh lines on top of my wrinkles.

[cnn.com]

[worldometers.info]

[statista.com]

@Thirst2learn Why would I spend my valuable time researching your false claims when the onus is on you prove them like I did with mine?

@Thirst2learn Failing to support your factual claims with evidence calls into question the credibility of both your claims and your personal integrity.

@Thirst2learn Another false allegation unsupported by evidence. Even I am embarrassed for you.

@Thirst2learn lovinlarge is a sleeping sheeple ... thank you for trying to awaken them.

You can educate ignorance, can't fix the other.

Blessings.

@Thirst2learn How does a google search prove the CDC is controlled by communists? I don't understand that.

@AtheistInNC

Project Paperclip

Nazi scientists came here after the war, and infiltrated all levels of government, and corporate life.

Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are all owned by big tech companies. Censorship, MKUltra, and so much more.

Try the browser BRAVE, as a Google alternative. BitChute instead of YouTube. Parler instead of Facebook.

The truth is out there, just hidden from those that will lose money from your freed and awakened mind.

@Thirst2learn

Exactly

@Thirst2learn Occam's razor. Just because FB or Google hide something doesn't mean they are communist, socialist or anything like that - they do what increases profit. That isn't communism.
So, I believe they don't give a full answer/search result to anything we put in there, but that isn't because they are communist. show PROOF, not assertions with no proof.

@WarwomanRising The nazi scientists didn't "infiltrate" - they were invited by the government. The U.S. govt knew that they were good scientists, and wanted them for our purposes. Google wasn't a big tech company when it started - it was a webpage started by a geek in a dorm room to meet girls. It became a big website because of marketing, and giving us things people wanted "right place, right time, right marketing" ... that isn't a surprise. Most big companies start that way, they aren't started by big companies and are big companies instantly.

"Freed and awakened mind" - that made me laugh.

I try not to use google products if I have the option, but sometimes I use them to see what the difference in results are among many browsers. If you don't live online, you really don't need to use any of them, do you? Local stores for shopping, Wall Street Journal or NY Times for news, and who wastes time watching any videos online? Meh. I'm not a slave to those things, but it looks like you are very familiar with them, and their substitutes. How do you know that BRAVE, BitChute and Parler are not owned by the very same companies you eschew?

@AtheistInNC

Your pitiful attempts to insult myself and fellow commenter, are noted. I will not do the same to you, in that, intelligent, and awakened members will read it for what it is.

Where we go one, we go all.

@Thirst2learn Even if they are the central tenets, that still is not proof

@Thirst2learn I am not a communist, but I support universal basic income. Not proof.

@Thirst2learn

Universal income is part of the GESARA/NESARA plan as well.

Have you read Michael Tellinger's contributism theory?

@WarwomanRising I made no attempt to insult anyone. If you chose to read something into my reply I can't stop you.

@AtheistInNC Are you still here?

@WarwomanRising

Where we go one, we go all

Ah. I take it you're a Qanon believer. So any facts contrary to your beliefs are simply part of the coverup, and the fact that there's no evidence to support them just shows how pervasive the coverup is. Conspiracy theories are wonderful that way.

45.3 million infections and over 1.1 million deaths worldwide. 1,000 deaths a day in the U.S. alone. Yeah, that's a false pandemic if ever I saw one. I would love to "wake up" from the nightmare of incompetence that is the Trump administration's response to this pandemic.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me that following blindly along with an unproven and unfalsifiable theory that has been debunked by almost every possible source makes someone more sheep-like than anyone who puts stock in open, verified facts. You have little standing to call anyone else a "sheeple" (not a word, by the way) if you put your blind faith in anonymous sources on the internet who dole out drips and drops of "information" at their whim, in the form of jigsaw-puzzle clues, with no evidence to back it up.

"There is nothing more dangerous than a mystic Association; the members of which put a ring through their own noses, by which they are led, panting, after more and more secrets, the less and less of which they are shown, the better they are pleased." -Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy

@Paul4747

Wow. A bit angry there. It appears you're all on board for doing the same thing that hasn't worked for 47 years, like a sheep, aka sheeple.

[facebook.com]

@Matias You mean the photos of the dolls, and the same footage from another event used repeatedly? Where is the proof that this 99.7% survivorable flu bug has jammed packed ERs and ICUs? Not even the fake news reports on it, because it's not there.

You could have closed with “That is unacceptable to me”.

Your omitting the “...to me” is an attempt to add power to your argument.

Your “Frankly, ....” is another such attempt.

@yvilletom At this writing, I see that you have made "correcting" comments to no fewer than eight replies. What are you doing? Grading papers?

@Fit50something Yes, and giving low grades to “in-the-box” comments.

I give high grades to comments that show signs of critical thinking, which in-the-box thinkers may say is amoral, on a spectrum between pragmatic and sociopathic.

@yvilletom Wow! I thought that you were a blowhard and a tight-ass already. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

@Fit50something You asked; I answered. You are most welcome.

Yes he safely choose 60 as the starting point, allowing 6 years for a vaccine from his current age.

@Omnedon That then would be a governmental choice dictates by law governing the people making the choice for them by that style of the given standard of "over 80 ..."