Absolute Values and Growing Government

Townhall.com ^ | June 29, 2009 | Townhall.com Staff

[Kaslin]

Some of our most damaging mistakes originate from the simple belief that something is an absolute good. The harm of the environmental movement (or at least the harm done by the most extremist groups) is due to the belief that “nature” is an absolute good. Likewise, much of the nanny-state meddling originates in the related mistake: the belief that “health” is an absolute good. Time and again, people have been led into the most bizarre theories whenever they postulate that something is an absolute good.

The truth is quite simple: All values are relative, and all are subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Though many arguments exist against this, and some may even sound plausible, a little bit of thought will show that, despite the seemingly plausible arguments, there really is no such thing as an absolute value.

Let us start with the most obvious one: Many people will argue “life” is an absolute value, that without life you cannot enjoy any other benefits, and so it is impossible to put a price on your life.

That simply is not true.

Take the obvious counterargument: People often risk their lives. If life were an absolute good, no price could be high enough to cause anyone to risk their lives. Yet, every day, people become police officers, firemen and soldiers, judging the benefit to be worth risking their life. Likewise, many others will skydive, race cars and otherwise risk their lives for enjoyment. This is an implicit admission that the benefit they derive from the experience is worth the risk. By doing so they show that their life has a fixed value, and thus is not absolute and infinite.

Some may object to this formulation, arguing that they accept the risk as they expect that it won’t come to pass. There are other instances where people will actually accept certain death, showing that some values weigh more than life. Martyrdom and sacrifice would indicate that there is a greater value than the life of the individual. Assuming that these people are rational, then we must admit that life itself is not an absolute value.

From life, we can move to “health.” Many nanny-state interventions are predicated on the idea that health is itself an absolute value, that we can ban things deemed “unhealthy” as they simply could never have enough benefit to outweigh the risks. On this basis, we have campaigns against drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, trans-fats, soda and more. This ignores the simple truth that health is not an absolute value—there are many who are willing to risk their health for the benefits they feel they receive. By prohibiting this, the health militants make interested individuals less satisfied, all in the name of the “absolute value” of health.

If something is an absolute value, then cost is no object, no benefit great enough to outweigh it, no harm great enough to argue against it. We end up with horribly misguided laws thanks to our belief in absolute values.

[Redbob]

"The harm of the environmental movement (or at least the harm done by the most extremist groups) is due to the belief that “nature” is an absolute good."

There, fixed it.
You're welcome.

[armymarinedad]

Post modernest drivel posing as conservative thought.

[OneWingedShark]

“The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing.” — Blaise Pascal

Human life DOES have an absolute value, an infinite value even, because of two things:
1) Humanity was created in God’s image; we therefore carry the image of an infinite God within our finite selves.
2) God Himself reaffirmed that value by becoming human and dying for us; because all our sin was worked by finite humans it is itself finite and the sacrifice of an infinite God pays for it all. (Granted we have to have the humility to accept His payment.)

Given the above argument you might think that is a good case against capital punishment; not so, there are actions we can do (via our free will) which are so repugnant that they should require the ultimate payment: one’s life.

Things like Murder & Rape.

[MEGoody]

I found the premise that health is not an absolute good to be silly. Of course being healthy is an absolute good. That doesn’t mean one wants government to intervene and FORCE people to do whatever is deemed best for their health at that moment.

[ecomcon]

Yep. Pure claptrap. Strawman arguments, mixing moral and economic values, definition fallacies, etc.

[Prospero]

They were close to the appearance of a cogent argument, but it fell through completely, even before the value of any individual's own human life was used for an example.

Unless we have managed to stuff the mere possibility of the existence of the God of Abraham (Father of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as reliably reported) totally out of the question (quite impossible, even if only not proved, the reverse is also unmistakable) then it can't be ignored that no one has disproven that such an objective value exists beyond the confines of human perception. An interesting thought experiment, but not a place to tinker unwisely. It therefore sounds like a Memo from the local Social Services for pulling the plug on Grandma or infanticide.

The value of life being relative is a monstrous place to stake the case for relative values, as in "one man's religion is another's belly laugh," as Robert Heinlein once wrote.

That anyone would deem entertainment and thrill-seeking being worth the risk to their own life proves nothing other than the individual in question has a subjective opinion of the value of their own life, which they extend to that of others.

The whole argument just falls to the ground if any allowance is made for an objective value to any individual's life.

This comes off, without objection, as the beginnings of an attempt to value individual life along one or a group's subjective opinion of it's quality, and thus a place where even liberals should fear to tread.