• dualistic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    But all people aren’t of equal worth. There isn’t an official arbitrator but we get to decide for ourselves, and there isn’t a much better way to evaluate them than their actions.

    The “all men created equal” in the… US consitution or declaration or whatever is complete nonsense.

    • 5too@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Declaring people to have a certain value relative to each other strikes me as uncomfortably close to treating people as things.

      • dualistic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t understand why only things can have different values. People have different impact on the environment, the world, etc. and what you value determines their worth on that scale. If everything is equally important to you, good or evil, then i guess everything and everyone can have the same value? I don’t really understand this paradigm.

        • 5too@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          What I’m saying is that it suggests uncomfortable things about the ethical framework in which whoever is making the valuations is operating. Not because of any specific valuation schemas, but because reducing people to numbers (values) is inherently dehumanizing.

          I’m not saying that there aren’t terrible people who do terrible things. But any ethical framework or decision that dehumanizes people I would consider inherently unethical.