The intrinsic value of life

[Eris]

A thought experiment:

Ignore what this would do the person involved. S/he is hypothetical and not the matter of the discussion.

There is a shipping container parked somewhere. It is connected to power and water lines. Inside it is a room with furniture, a computer and a TV with a video game and a lot of books. It is completely sound proof. The outside world stuffs food down a slot in the door. There are two scenarios:


Someone lives in the container, and eats the food, and leads a life inside.
Nobody lives in the container. The food is automatically ground down into compost, which is flushed down the toilet.


The outside world does not know which. Nobody on the outside world can tell. If a person lives inside, does the person inside's life have a meaning on it's own?

What I want to discuss is whether life on it's own has an intrinsic value, or if it's in the interaction with others people have a value.

[Hideki Motosuwa.]

No matter what, life always has it's intrinsic qualities and values, whether or not he/she has interaction with others. I think that person is essentially a child and when you're a child, everything's new. If I had the chance, I would love to learn everything over again. I guess people these days only value knowledge and interaction and look upon that person as a total stranger because of they don't know him/her, so they don't value them much, unless they're familiar with him/her, but maybe they can be valued automatically if that other person likes what they see 0.0 I value the fact that someone actually lives in that shipping container 0_o;;; Well, there's my silly rant, good day(or night) xD

[Eris]

I value the fact that someone actually lives in that shipping container 0_o;;;

But the point of the thought experiment is that you don't know if someone lives there (scenario 1) or if it's just a meaningless deception to make it look like someone lives there (scenario 2). Nobody does. We can add that those who set it all up committed seppuku shortly after arranging the experiment, taking any information about the reality of the container with them to the grave. Also, the subject lives in the container their entire life.

[Happi Giraffe!]

Well, i personally think that a life that doesnt somehow affect any other person's life is one not well lived. When someone like that person in the box is just living in there all by his/her lonesome, what kind of life are they leading? Who are they helping or affecting except for themselves? Who is affecting them? Even if there are lots of books and a tv and all of that good stuff in there, he/she wont accomplish anything through any of that if they have no lessons to learn. In other words, life is supposed to have its own little value through gaining and learning and influencing others in some way or form. To me, if there was really a person living in that box, their life really has no meaning. (Unless you consider the fact that some people might be curious of the box's existence and if someone was actually living there.)

[Hideki Motosuwa.]

But the point of the thought experiment is that you don't know if someone lives there (scenario 1) or if it's just a meaningless deception to make it look like someone lives there (scenario 2). Nobody does. We can add that those who set it all up committed seppuku shortly after arranging the experiment, taking any information about the reality of the container with them to the grave. Also, the subject lives in the container their entire life.
Oh, then I'm stumped on this one -_-' Darnit, I overlooked a few things >.<;;;

[Eris]

Well, i personally think that a life that doesnt somehow affect any other person's life is one not well lived. When someone like that person in the box is just living in there all by his/her lonesome, what kind of life are they leading? Who are they helping or affecting except for themselves? Who is affecting them? Even if there are lots of books and a tv and all of that good stuff in there, he/she wont accomplish anything through any of that if they have no lessons to learn. In other words, life is supposed to have its own little value through gaining and learning and influencing others in some way or form. To me, if there was really a person living in that box, their life really has no meaning. (Unless you consider the fact that some people might be curious of the box's existence and if someone was actually living there.)

That is exactly what I designed this thought experiment to illustrate. Our intrinsic value, if it does exist, is is not intrinsic of our existence, but of our actions and effects on our surroundings.

[Ratiasu]

Finally, a thread that has meaning. And requires thought and more effort than a one word response.

If there is a person, than yes they have meaning/value, but does not affect anyone else. However, if the food talks, which it probably wont, the person might have a little bit more meaning/value
If there is no one, well, i dont think i need to explain.

Btw, i dont even know what i just typed, i just put a whole bunch of words together; But chances are, people aren't going to read this anyways, so it doesn't matter and has no value

[ninja legend]

i don't even know what you are talking about.:wacko:

[Kojack]

I think the person's life has some value. I think that in order to have value, a life has to have an affect the world (positively or negatively, doesn't matter; sometimes a negative impact can turn into a good thing). Because the world does not know whether the person is actually there or not, but is aware of the crate's existence, this sparks conversation between people. And those interactions can potentially lead to other things. The person's life does not have the same value as a functioning member of society, but there is some value there.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Their life has no value to me, as I am not aware of their existence. Objectively it would though.

Also, is there a radioactive-based time-trigger that releases poison gas into the box? I'm just asking.

[_Freddie_]

So I don't know if anyone is inside, and it's my duty to put food inside this box?

I'd feel guilty and question whether I'm killing someone if I don't perform that task, yet if I do I'll wonder if no one is inside, if I'm wasting my time, and I'd be very irritated.

This scenario causes an infinite loop in my brain personally, no matter which one I choose, I'm going to be unhappy.

[███]

Well something has to be alive in order for it to be a life I suppose.

So even if a person isn't in there, if something alive is in there then yes, I would have to say that's a life.

[Gjallarhorn]

Does the person's life have meaning on its own? I wouldn't think so.

If the person simply lives in the box and does nothing other than perhaps watch televison, then they are not exercising the potentional of their life, and instead are simply consuming food and power while not outputing anything, other than, obviously, waste.

If the person lives inside the box, and studies, and learns things, perhaps even makes discoveries, then they are exercising their potentional. But, since they are cut off from society, their knowledge is thus useless, since they would be unable to communicate it to the outside world. Anything they could do with their life would have no meaning, since it would, inevitably, be useless. I say this not inclusive of the outside world and a "In the long run, we're all dead anyway" sort of fatalist view. Relative to the world that the person in the box is in, anything he would do would have no meaning.

"Meaning" would imply that it serves a purpose, and is generally subjective under the view of a society. If the ideas or discoveries of the man in the box are not communicated, he is the only person that would be able to make use of them. But, within the box, he would not have any need for most discoveries he could make. So, they have little meaning to him, and no meaning to the outside world. If the man spends his life doing things without meaning, his life would have no meaning.

[Datenshi]

To answer that question we would have to agree upon the definition of value, which is no easy task itself because people have different ideas on what has value or not.

However, value is by dictionary definition an object or trait that is desirable, so I believe we can tentatively define a valuable thing as something that we suffer a certain loss should that object be taken away from us. From the perspective of the outside, the person in question has zero value, because it doesn't gain or lose anything should that person cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the subject, the subject's own life has inmistakable value because should he lose it, he would cease to posses everything.

In short, the answer varies according to whether we are speaking from a social context or a subjective one. If the paradigm shifts, the truth differs as well.

And to address the question of the original post more clearly, I believe there is no intristic value in life, as there is no intristic value in anything. However, the single most important trait that differentiates human life from all other objects is that human life has a concious mind. Human life has no intristic value, but it is intristically chained to a self concious ego that values itself, which nearly amounts to the same thing. Money would cease to have any value if the human race were to perish, but even if all other human life were to perish save for a single human, that human's life would still have value by definition if he remained to consider to have something to lose by dying.

[shogi_elite]

I think it depends on from what perspective you look at it from, and the values associated with that perspective. If the person inside the box had a will to live, for the sake of living, then from that person's perspective life does have an intrinsic value. If living inside that box devoid of all contact to the human world, then the person would most likely break down.

I remember reading a story once, it was pretty old, and I don't remember its name or author. But in the story, a person gave up 7(maybe lol) years of his life, living in a room. The person could get any literature they wished, but they could not leave. In return, if the person stayed in the room for the amount of time, they would receive a large amount of money. the day before the man's time would have been up, he left without a word to anyone, but left behind a note. Saying how he had never learned as much as he had in his time alone, and how his fear of returning to the world made him suicidal. It has been years since I read the story, but that is close enough.

What I am getting at is that the only logical point one could find to life is to live your life. everything else could just be considered the product of thousands of years of mental evolution in the human race. The first humans didn't plan on going to college and the things we hold important today. They ate, they slept as their urges carried them. Yet over the years we have built upon our baser instincts to create an imaginary world that we all live in.


Did that make sense? because this is something ive been thinking about for a while, and im wondering if im crazy lol.

[KuroTan]

I'd say yes. S/he serves as a guinea pig for an interesting thought experiment. That is his or her purpose now and the meaning of his or her entire existence.

To the general question, I'd still say yes because that's what I believe in. I'm not intelligent enough yet to support that belief but I'll get there someday. Hopefully.