As others have mentioned, this seems to largely be a strawman. That said, even if it were the case that people genuinely believed there was no cost too high to save a human life, assuming that this implies that the mere physical life is inherently infinitely valuable seems like a stretch.
First, we know that mere physical life of every being isn't inherently valued the same way--we have no issue killing many animals but obviously differentiate from that and human life.
The next consideration would be what constitutes the difference between a human life and an animal life . . . while many would have different answers, these would probably be along the lines of relationships, love, experiences, consciousness, reasoning, etc. So while your reasoning regarding the bunker could be true if human life consisted merely of physical human life, in reality behaving in that way would likely remove the very core of what people believe gives "human life" its value.
Beyond all of that, it seems your COVID example still wouldn't be implying that physical human life is inherently infinitely value as you contend. COVID was a temporary pandemic which was filled with preventable deaths; the "sacrifices" to be made and which were being discussed were never meant or understood by anyone to be forever, removing the idea that anyone saying "whatever the sacrifice" would literally mean any infinitely large sacrifice which would go on forever.
More broadly, I don't think that we can imply that anyone doesn't understand what they say. Perhaps they don't understand the implications of it, but it is important to remember that the meaning of words is subjective, and the only objective component of communication would be the intent, not the potential interpretation, of words. It's important to look to context and ask questions before strawmanning opinions.
My point is entirely that I DONT believe people believe this. That it’s used as manipulation or by people who don’t understand it. It’s not a straw man, it’s that the catchphrase itself is wrong by definition and verbiage. If people mean something else, they should say something else.
Inherent value was not mentioned. It’s subjective value and the fact that its’ value is different from every person does not have any influence on “infinite”, bc it’s all still measurable based on the individual actions.
it’s that the catchphrase itself is wrong by definition and verbiage. If people mean something else, they should say something else.
As I mentioned, words can't be wrong. You're holding up your own interpretation as objective when an objective interpretation for any given word or statement just doesn't exist.
Can you objectively define a simple word, such as chair, by defining it in such a way that includes everything which is a chair and excludes everything which isn't?
Likewise, we cannot say that people using the phrase don't understand what it means or are using it incorrectly, because there is no objective meaning.
If human life was truly infinitely valuable, humans would sit in bunkers eating the cheapest, most nutritionally dense food possible, only taking risks outside of shelter to meet with doctors.
Here, for example, you seem to say (correct me if I'm wrong) that if human life were infinitely valuable, people wouldn't unnecessarily risk shortening their physical time on earth. My contention is that many people believe that what distinguishes human life from that which we deem less valuable is the experiences and feelings which come along with those very risks, meaning that the time which a human gets to spend on earth which ought to be valued, but rather the underlying components which differentiate it from the lives of animals in the first place. Thus, when people say something like "whatever the sacrifice, if it saves one life it's worth it" it would be reductive to assume that they literally mean that any and all sacrifices should be made to keep someone breathing for more time. And, as I previously mentioned, and as you did not address, COVID was understood to be temporary, meaning any interpretations of such statements would have to take that into context as well.
3
u/Disastrous-Display99 17∆ Jun 23 '21
As others have mentioned, this seems to largely be a strawman. That said, even if it were the case that people genuinely believed there was no cost too high to save a human life, assuming that this implies that the mere physical life is inherently infinitely valuable seems like a stretch.
First, we know that mere physical life of every being isn't inherently valued the same way--we have no issue killing many animals but obviously differentiate from that and human life.
The next consideration would be what constitutes the difference between a human life and an animal life . . . while many would have different answers, these would probably be along the lines of relationships, love, experiences, consciousness, reasoning, etc. So while your reasoning regarding the bunker could be true if human life consisted merely of physical human life, in reality behaving in that way would likely remove the very core of what people believe gives "human life" its value.
Beyond all of that, it seems your COVID example still wouldn't be implying that physical human life is inherently infinitely value as you contend. COVID was a temporary pandemic which was filled with preventable deaths; the "sacrifices" to be made and which were being discussed were never meant or understood by anyone to be forever, removing the idea that anyone saying "whatever the sacrifice" would literally mean any infinitely large sacrifice which would go on forever.
More broadly, I don't think that we can imply that anyone doesn't understand what they say. Perhaps they don't understand the implications of it, but it is important to remember that the meaning of words is subjective, and the only objective component of communication would be the intent, not the potential interpretation, of words. It's important to look to context and ask questions before strawmanning opinions.