"By default we are unthinking creatures who do not value or justify things, even many of the things we are privy to. Burden of proof is placed upon the claimant. If you value something, and wish others to share your values, you need to persuade them."
No, 'by default' we humans are, as the skeptic and once-Christian-now-atheist,Michael Shermer has pointed out, humans are "pattern seekers." And, as the non-skeptic and Catholic priest, Robert Spitzer has pointed out, this is pre-cognitive, and universal within the species. We have a drive toward unconditional Truth, Love, Beauty, and Justice, and seems to "know" these exist and strive toward them without being taught.
http://www.lifeprinciples.net/ModelTeachText.html#def
""By combining the above three steps, we have the essentials of an objective definition of "person," namely, "a being possessing an intrinsic guiding force (whether this be merely genetic, a soul, or both) toward fulfillment through unconditional, perfect and even infinite truth, goodness, love, beauty and being."
This objective definition gives rise to a critical social principle about the interpretation of human "person." Inasmuch as any being should be treated with a dignity commensurate with its nature, persons should be treated with an unconditional dignity commensurate with their nature towards unconditional Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty and Being. Such a dignity acknowledges the intrinsic worth of a human being. This unconditional dignity is the ground of inalienable rights, which acknowledges a universal duty to protect and promote this unconditional dignity."
Oh I see, so what was your position on Middle East peace when you were a Morula?
I don't mean to sound snippy, but I think you're being a bit glib. You might use some intelligence when interpreting my comments. 10 years before I was born I had no thoughts on any subject. Now I have thoughts. From there I'll just let you ponder the mean value theorem and your own memories.
We have a drive toward unconditional Truth, Love, Beauty, and Justice, and seems to "know" these exist and strive toward them without being taught.
IOW (I hope), a drive toward understanding, propagation, sensory pleasure, and self-interest. I don't deny it, but would stipulate that we "seem" to have these drives. Also, possessing a drive and knowing one exists are not the same thing. That's why they are called "drives". Even lowly animals have some drives--which often are related to survival and propagation, as one would expect.
""By combining the above three steps, we have the essentials of an objective definition of "person," namely, "a being possessing an intrinsic guiding force (whether this be merely genetic, a soul, or both) toward fulfillment through unconditional, perfect and even infinite truth, goodness, love, beauty and being."
He might be an inspiring poet, but I hope you don't perform serious analysis with terms like "infinite truth".
Inasmuch as any being should be treated with a dignity commensurate with its nature, persons should be treated with an unconditional dignity commensurate with their nature towards unconditional Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty and Being.
Sounds like a potential loophole for holocaust. What would be the "commensurate" treatment for persons whose nature toward those things is deficient? I guess one might call them "the unworthy" or "subhuman"?
Such a dignity acknowledges the intrinsic worth of a human being.
Hmm. Who will be dubbed the official recognizer of a person's "intrinsic worth"? I guarantee you that Pol Pot would not value people the same way the Pope does.
I don't mean to be a wet towel on your inspiration. That guy's flowery language is very uplifting and rings of truth in some vague artistic way. I'm sure he's a very nice humanitarian. But it is hardly language worthy of a rational argument.