On Human Value

The reason that I replied to Pastor Boyd's reasoning in his discussion with JivinJ was that his type of thinking is very common for those who advocate abortion rights.  Since J was asking all the right questions, I allowed myself to be a commentator on the exchange.  However, I wish to extend my appreciation to Pastor Boyd (and JivinJ) for having the courage to answer J's questions (and J for asking the right ones.) 

I predicted that Pastor Boyd would not answer J's question about why he abhors abortion, and I was about half right.  Boyd stated:

You asked why I abhor abortion. Revulsion results when something you value is devalued. Since I place incredible value on the unborn, I abhor abortion. Whether it would be effective or not, my proposal for a political compromise was meant to minimize violence to the unborn.

I'm going to take it easy on Pastor Boyd today, so I do not wish to imply that I know what he means when he states "I place incredible value on the unborn".  However, I would like to use his response to discuss the notion of human value.  "What makes human beings valuable?" may one of the most important questions we will ever ask.

There are essentially 2 different ways that something can be valuable.  If an entity is intrinsically valuable, it is valuable based only on what it is ontologically.  In other words, it is valuable based on the type of thing that it is, or its essential properties.  On the other hand, if something is instrumentally valuable, it is valuable based on its characteristics, or accidental properties. 

Most things that we value we value instrumentally.  The example I use is my Palm Tungsten T3 PDA.  I love this thing.  Mine holds 10 books, MP3 files, a full dictionary, PDR, my schedule, contacts, and pictures of my kids.  I truly value this thing, and I would be very upset if something happened to it. 

However, it is important to realize that I value this entity not based on what it is ontologically, but what it does for me instrumentally.  Last year, my daughter decided to crash test it and discovered that the screen could not tolerate a trip off the counter onto the hard floor below.  With a big crack in the screen, the Palm that I valued so much was worthless.  I did not value this entity at all when it unable to do what I wanted it to do.  I sent it back and Palm sent me a different one (actually refurbished) one, that I now consider very valuable. 

There will also come a day that a new handheld computer will come out leaving my Tungsten T3 obsolete.  At that time, I will place value in my new gadget, and my old one will be sent to the trash bin. 

Should we value human beings in this fashion?  Should we value them when they are "wanted", and cease to value them when they are not?  Should we value certain characteristics like rational thought, and stop valuing humans when they cease (or before they develop the capability) to think rationally?  Should we value sentience or awareness as properties that are valuable.  (If so, I'm sure not going to sleep very peacefully tonight.)

Or should we value human beings based on the fact that they are human beings.  They are the type of beings that express rational thoughts not as an accidental property, but as a manifestation of their ontological nature as human beings.  I'm driving home tonight, and if I'm in an accident and lose my ability to post on a blog, am I less of a human being?  If I hurt my arms and lose the capacity to do surgery, am I less a human being?  If I need a ventilator to breathe, am I less a human being?

So how should we value human beings?  The Biblical view is clear - we are valued intrinsically as the only beings made in the Imago Dei, or image of God.  If someone states that they value human beings yet believe it should be legal to dismember them at an early stage of development, these are questions they have to answer.  If not, they should hope that I am correct, for their ability to think rationally could be questioned. 

Update:  Blogicus adds to the discussion of human value by questioning whether those who reject Christ can fully understand the concept of intrinsic value:

Therefore, a practical consequence of the rejection of God is a change in the way humans perceive the value of others. As society is secularized, it becomes man-centered and value is assigned based upon consciousness, maturity, contribution to society, etc. Using an example from the presidential election, Sen. John Kerry stated that he believed life begins at conception. He explained that abortion was still justified because personhood begins later. So, life is not valuable until it reaches a certain point of maturity, defined mystically as the point of “personhood.”

I agree, but I do think it is possible to argue for the intrinsic value of human beings to unbelievers.  I believe that the intrinsic value of human beings is a part of the natural law, or the law written on everyone's heart (Rom 2).  As J. Budziszewski has written, it is something we can't not know.  Even the U.N., in its declaration of human rights, asserts that human beings have "inherent dignity".  Where did that dignity come from, and why is it inherent (and not developed)?  It is because you cannot base human rights on anything other then inherent value.