How is life measured?

[Sks]

So I was wondering, how do you compare the worth of different living things?

 

Or how would you?

 

Do 20 goldfish = 1 dog?

 

Do 2 apes = 1 human?

 

I was eating a fish, and wondering how many fish are equal to my life.

[disgracian]

Cats are worth the most.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Geishawhelk]

As a Buddhist, your life is worth as much as a mosquito's.

That is to say, I would never even dream of killing you, but I wouldn't kill a mosquito, either.

In my eyes, life is precious.

It's not a question of worth or expediency. It's a question of respect.

[jwi71]

We do not have equal value for all life...we tend to place our own above all others. One proof of this is the simple fact we eat. If you choose to eat meat, then you obviously take the life of the animal. Should you be vegan, you do in fact kill to survive - you pull the carrot up and eat it...that plant is dead. It simply doesn't scream/bleed in the process - or look particularly cute.

 

Parents being a notable exception as parents are known to sacrifice themselves for their offspring.

 

Oh...another test about the value of life: Your father is on one boat, your mother on another, a cow on a yet a third boat. And wouldn't you know it...all three are sinking. And (of course) you can only save one.

 

Which?

 

And don't buy any more boats from that company.

[Geishawhelk]

Every time I drive anywhere, I kill thousands of insects.

If something is done by accident, then there is obvious remorse (as far as I'm concerned) and yes, vegetarianism and veganism also have collateral damage.

The point I was making is that I don't deliberately kill without thought, or through the assumption that 'lesser beings' are more expendable than I am.

It goes against what I believe.

 

As to your puzzle, until it happens, I can't be bothered to work it out. If it has a solution, great, if not, I'll think about it when the time comes.

[jwi71]

Geisha,

I just love this stuff. Used to stay up late arguing this with some Buddhist friends of mine. Those were the days.

[Mahatma]

As with Geishawhelk, I am a Buddhist and firmly believe any form of life is just as precious as the next.

 

edit:

 

To jwi71: The life that each my father, mother, and cow possess is equally valuable. However, the contribution to further advancement of the world is more likely to come from my father or mother, therefor the cow would not be chosen.

 

As for between my father and mother, I will not be asked to choose between them unless it is truly needed of me.

 

One thing you have to understand is Buddhism is not a religion with set rules. You are encouraged to make your own path to enlightenment. However, if you do not see the value of all life, you will probably never reach enlightenment.

[The Collector]

I think carrots look quite cute. Especially baby ones.

[marlena]

For I have known them all already, known them all:

Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,

I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;

 

T.S. Eliot The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

 

Never moe beautifully expressed.

[Sks]

I am talking about this if you look at it objectively, obviously as a personal choice my family is worth more then the world to me, and I would have no problem sacrificing the world for them.

 

But, as an outsider looking in - how would you measure the value of something?

 

I think population numbers would have a large effect, 1 out of 7,000,000,000 is allot less important then 1 out of 100,000.

[Trimmer]

As for between my father and mother, I will not be asked to choose between them unless it is truly needed of me.

Yeah, I agree, you don't need to create a "Sophie's Choice" between the parents to make the point. Say the three boats are sinking and you have the resources to save two of them, but not all 3. Let's face it, the outcome is still the same. It's going to be the cow, and the point is made.

 

As with Geishawhelk, I am a Buddhist and firmly believe any form of life is just as precious as the next.

This seems to say that all life is "equally valuable" then? (any form is "just as precious" as the next...)

 

The life that each my father, mother, and cow possess is equally valuable.

Again, explicitly "equal" value...

 

However, the contribution to further advancement of the world is more likely to come from my father or mother, therefor the cow would not be chosen.

But there's the conundrum. Whether you dance around it and refuse to call it "value" or not, you are still assigning some kind of a rank - I can't help but call it "value" - to the different creatures.

 

Let's put it another way. You have more boats. One life entity in each one - your Mom, your Dad, a sibling, the same old cow, a pet bird in a cage, a rat the stowed away on an empty boat. They are all sinking at an equal rate - you don't know how long you have - you may lose some, you may not - but you go about the business of saving them one at a time. What order do you choose?

 

If all life is "equally" valuable, wouldn't it be most efficient to just start with the closest boat - even if your parents in the more distant boats have to wait - at risk - for you to rescue the equally valuable rat?

 

Whether you call it "value," or "worth," or "potential to contribute" or whatever, there is an unavoidable ranking that goes on. Geisha acknowledges that she kills thousands of insects in a drive down the road, and is thoughful about that point, but if she killed even a single human being, her thought process and life would certainly be manifestly disrupted in ways far beyond that which she allows the insects to cause.

 

I can understand the proposition that "all life has value", but I think it's hard to support "all life has equal value" without significant dissembling about what you mean by "value."

[Geishawhelk]

I can understand the proposition that "all life has value", but I think it's hard to support "all life has equal value" without significant dissembling about what you mean by "value."

 

And this is the equal dilemma that Buddhists face.

We state and claim that all life is equally valuable, but push come to shove - what would we do, indeed, what would we do?

And the answer is - I don't know.

Obviously, aspiring to idealism, I would respond with - "The Right thing". But the only way to assess and try to calculate what 'the right thing' would be - would be to be in the situation, and know all the different parameters.

 

How deep is the water?

Can anybody actually swim?

Are my parents Buddhists also?

Am I really the only 'rescue craft' in the area?

Can I open the cage to let the bird out?

How about the rat? can I put it in a boat with someone else?

 

The bottom line is this.

Buddhists come to understand and accept that all life is sacred.

Our very first precept is Do No Harm.

Weirdly enough, not only should each of the primary 5 precepts (applicable to laypeople AND monastics alike) be considered ONE in conjunction with ALL the other 4, we have to include and accept that to do no harm is applicable to ourselves as well.

 

Do No Harm applies not only to physically manifested 'violence' or injury - but to psychological harm as well.

So although we strive to keep the 5 precepts, we understand that to beat ourselves up with guilt is also harmful, because it prevents us from thinking clearly, and from moving on.

Please understand, Guilt is different to Remorse. Remorse is productive. Guilt is inhibitive.

 

A Buddhist monastery in America (and I'm sorry - I can find out where, but right now I don't have that info' to hand) had a minor infestation of cockroaches.

At first, the monks welcomed their little 'brothers' and tolerated their presence. Pretty soon however, the infestation became intolerable. Visitors began to fall off, and hygiene began to be compromised.

The Abbott contacted the Head Monastery in Nepal. There was a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing and discussion about what could - or should - be done.

In the end, after prolonged debates, discussions, consultations and a great deal of arguing - it was finally decided to call in the exterminators.

This was a devastating and demoralising blow to the Monastic community. The decision was horrendous, but the alternative was judged and deemed to be worse.

So the deed was done.

It caused great sadness and consternation, but in the end, for the sake of the many, the few were dispensed with.

It was not a decision taken lightly. It became a burdensome memory, and the monks offered many prayers and invocations for a future and improved re-birth, for their little bethren.

Monks became resigned to having to work through the negative kamma (Karma) they had created up for themselves, and knew enlightenment was now further away than before.

 

Please don't take this statement lightly. For Buddhists, the chief raison d'etre is the realisation and elimination of Suffering. This is what the Buddha taught. So they knew that by subjecting the cockroaches to suffering, they were also perpetuating their own.

 

I'm not telling you this in an attempt to elevate Buddhists in your opinions, or to make them sound self-righteous and sanctimonious.

I'm merely saying that in such a dilemma, choices have to be made.

I guess, in every situation, you calculate "The lesser of the two evils."

[Mahatma]

But there's the conundrum. Whether you dance around it and refuse to call it "value" or not, you are still assigning some kind of a rank - I can't help but call it "value" - to the different creatures.

 

 

Life of a cow is just as valuable as the life of my father or mother. However, for the advancement of the world, my parents are far more important than the cow.

 

No different to why I would kill a cow to survive. My contributions to the world are going to be greater than the cow.

[Geishawhelk]

Not so.

The cow gives milk, leather, food, young and other products.

What we do in life invariably causes upset along the line. That is to say, if we work to advantage in one direction, inevitably, something, somewhere will suffer. Whatever we do in triumph, somewhere else something ends in failure.

 

To consider that your contributions are greater than that of the cow's is selfish. the cow is dealt with and used and abused by us for our advantage. We do things for personal gain, benefit and profit.

We contribute. the cow commits.

[Trimmer]

First of all, let me say that I am absolutely not taking pot shots at anything either of you guys are saying. I don't take your beliefs lightly at all - I have great respect for them - and while I'm discussing this at a kind of an academic level, I'm not trying to poke holes in anything.

 

Life of a cow is just as valuable as the life of my father or mother. However, for the advancement of the world, my parents are far more important than the cow.

So it comes down to the cow is equally valuable, but the human is more important... That's a kind of a fine line that I'm not understanding.

 

Again: I accept the proposition that all life is sacred, that all life is valuable. It's just that when the "equally valuable" gets used, I think you end up dancing around a little, and using constructs like "the cow is equally valuable, but less important."

 

A Buddhist monastery in America (and I'm sorry - I can find out where, but right now I don't have that info' to hand) had a minor infestation of cockroaches....

 

Monks became resigned to having to work through the negative kamma (Karma) they had created up for themselves, and knew enlightenment was now further away than before.

 

Please don't take this statement lightly.

I promise you I don't.

 

 

I'm merely saying that in such a dilemma, choices have to be made.

I guess, in every situation, you calculate "The lesser of the two evils."

And again, I'm not saying this to poke back at you here - I find it a fascinating discussion, and it comes back to the question in the OP: how do you assign those values, how do you determine the lesser of two evils (or rank a greater number of evils, like the creatures at risk in the sinking boats.)

 

Perhaps it's an essential dilemma to the practice of your faith, trying to bring the concept of the sanctity of all life in line with the realities of living on earth. In a way, it gives you something to work on throughout your life - a goal, perhaps unreachable in practice on earth, but still to be reached for.

[Geishawhelk]

First of all, let me say that I am absolutely not taking pot shots at anything either of you guys are saying. I don't take your beliefs lightly at all - I have great respect for them - and while I'm discussing this at a kind of an academic level, I'm not trying to poke holes in anything.

 

THis is completely evident, never thoight otherwise. I thank you, in any case.....

 

 

 

....And again, I'm not saying this to poke back at you here - I find it a fascinating discussion, and it comes back to the question in the OP: how do you assign those values, how do you determine the lesser of two evils (or rank a greater number of evils, like the creatures at risk in the sinking boats.)

 

 

 

Perhaps it's an essential dilemma to the practice of your faith, trying to bring the concept of the sanctity of all life in line with the realities of living on earth. In a way, it gives you something to work on throughout your life - a goal, perhaps unreachable in practice on earth, but still to be reached for.

 

 

Actually, that's just about spot on.

If you take a look at this thread, from post #15, it will give you the basic tenets of Buddhism.

I really don't want to elaborate here, because I fear the topic is already straying away from the OP's original intention (I think he really does want to know how many cows make an elephant....!) So if you want to have a look at it, and discuss stuff further, I'd be delighted to do so in either a ready-made thread, or via PM's. This is not intended to preach, insist, convert, justify or convince. It is purely discursive.

If you'd prefer to leave alone as it is now, I have no problem with that either.

 

Thank you so much for discussing it thus far!

[Sks]

Yes, from an objective standpoint how many gold fish are equal to a humans life, assuming you needed to choose.

 

If you go off populations, the Galapagos Giant Tortoise is much more valuable then a human, as far fewer of them currently exist.

[Mahatma]

Instead of hijacking sks' thread I created another that is more directed at our Buddhist oriented discussion.

[johan]

I think you're right.

 

20 goldfish = 1 dog. Ruffly.

 

5 Republicans = 1 mannequin.

[Mahatma]

AND

 

15 Democrats = 1 Republican

[Sks]

I think you're right.

 

20 goldfish = 1 dog. Ruffly.

 

5 Republicans = 1 mannequin.

 

So that means that 25 Democrats, must equal a mannequin, considering 5 Democrats = 1 Republican.

 

 

All jokes aside, back to topic please.

[Trimmer]

Actually, setting aside the Buddhist approach for now (handily spun off to a new thread here...) I am currently reading a book called I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter (2007, Basic Books, New York.) This is the guy who wrote Godel, Escher, Bach back in the day.

 

The book is an exploration of consciousness, and our ability to perceive ourselves as "I". Anyway, the first chapter is entitled On Souls and Their Sizes, and he presents an interesting discussion of the levels of consciousness - "sizes of souls" - by which we almost instinctively rank living entities from viruses up to human beings. He does not present it from the perspective of value, which we have discussed above in this thread, but as a measurement of consciouness, self-perception, etc. I wouldn't do it justice to try to paraphrase or summarize here, but if you are interested, I do recommend the book.

 

The one interesting point I want to reiterate is that he is not proposing to measure the value of a living entity. He starts the book-long exploration of the development of human consciousness - "I-ness" - with a foundation that proposes that in the range between the clear non-consciousness of viruses and microbes, and the obvious consciousness of human beings, it is easier to acknowledge that there is a kind of continuum along which lie creatures with "different-sized souls", than it is to draw an arbitrary dividing line and say "everything below this line is not conscious, and everything above the line is conscious..."

 

My point being that to discuss the "measurement" of a life, I don't think it's as simple as to think there is only one dimension. We've already discussed - and I think the implied context of the OP is a measurement of - "value," but there must be many other measurements by which we measure life - in this other example, the "size of a soul" which doesn't imply or impute value, but speaks to levels of consciousness and self-awareness.

[Trialbyfire]

If you're looking for a definitive way to quantify a life, look to your insurance plan. It even breaks down how much an arm is worth in dollars and cents. Then, take that hard dollar figure and convert it to the number of goldfish you can buy.

[ed-205]

Cats are worth the most.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Yeah, and Tastier too!

[Mahatma]

Here is a question that I will ask and I think it will get some answers that the OP was looking for:

 

If you had to choose between killing 50 elephants or 1 human, which would it be?

 

How about 500 elephants or 1 human?

 

1,000,000 elephants?

 

 

How about monkeys? Where do you draw the line?