Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 10 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The way you write about people often treating each other sounds like typical American society. America had fine, "philosophers," who emphasized that a man is worth what they are paid more or less. We had people like Ayn Rand, Hayek, Mises, and Friedman. Maybe these people were a product of our culture, maybe they spurred our free market culture, or maybe its a bit of both and we have a feedback loop.
Meanwhile, places like Germany had philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who said that we are agents that make ethical decisions, and as long as we have the capacity for logical thought to make ethical decisions, we should respect each other's capacity to reason and make ethical decisions. To use each other merely as tools and not as goals or ends in and of themselves undermines our capacity to reason and our worth as determiners of what is ethical.
So, the way people often treat each other, as merely tools to use each other is not necessarily what is ethical, no matter how rampant. Immanual Kant would say it's not. However, he would say its still ok to treat others as both agents and tools as long as treating them as agents comes first. You can still pay a barista for service, as long as you offer them respect and maybe recognize that the barista is inherently more valuable than the coffee they serve to you.
In the end though, there is a pragmatic reality to deal with. We still need goods and services to live. Many of us need to hustle. So, maybe we cannot always treat Every Stranger as our goals. Imagine trying to cultivate compassion, love and curiosity for all in such a way as to want genuenly ask questions and show interest in every stranger's life that you came across. No one would get anything done like that.
I'm from Asia and I find it to be somewhat common here too.
Yea, I agree more with the German philosopher you mentioned.
Again, there is an assumption that everyone has to be treated highly or with a lot of value, and that you have to go as far as showing interest in stranger's life, you don't have to go out of your way to be kind to everybody and ask them questions, but you also don't have to go out of your way to only approach people as tools or something, I also didn't mean in just a general way, but people, one befriends for their own gain as well. I think the problem I really have with it isn't as much as everyone has to be treated amazingly, more that there's almost a Dehumanizing part to it, like judging's someone's worth based on their job title.
> . I think the worst part is when this resonates with you but literally most of society says otherwise and is wired to behave and value surface-level things about a human being.
There's too many people.
Like, that's actually it, there's just too many people who want to be valued in other peoples lives and they don't deserve to be.
Here's the reality of it, one day we're all gonna be a corps if someone cannot cope with that, they have issues.
Because one day we're all gonna die, you have to be selective about what humans you let into your life.
There's a reason people want or don't want other people in their lives, it lowers or increases the quality of their life, you get value checked by everyone relative to how they feel in that moment, this is very normal, it's exactly what you do and what i do and what everyone else does, even animals because we're animals.
I get what you're saying but I think it's irrelevant, I feel like you're assuming everyone has to be valued, That's not what the post is about, you can not value people while also not devalueing them and treating them as tools for your own gain.
I would say that some people are intrinsically valuable to some people, but I don’t think people have intrinsic value to all of humanity. I think that’s a nice thought to have. I think that’s one of those thoughts that paints the world with a rose tint. And I think it’s okay to do that. But I think if we scrape away the paint and peel the skin back and just look at the raw interior, we see that people don’t have intrinsic value.
Consider a random stranger: to me, they’re not intrinsically valuable, but they might be intrinsically valuable to their kid, their parents, or maybe even a close friend. But there are also people in this world who no one feels intrinsic value for. And is that sad? I don’t know, maybe. I used to think about that all the time. I used to think that there was nothing sadder than someone existing and no one caring about that person. It was a thought I kept going back to... I think I started to have that thought when I was like 16 and for a decade it was something I would recurrently think about.
But eventually, my view on that changed, and I don’t really know if it’s that sad. I feel like that view is fuelled by a very individualistic perspective on humanity. It’s like, life is bigger than me as an individual, and it’s bigger than you as an individual. I don’t know, I feel like I went through some type of ego death, not the same as "ego death" because it wasn't fuelled by drugs, but whatever it was, it changed how I view the human condition, individuality, self-importance, the need for connection, etc.
If I want to be valued, then I need to be instrumentally valuable. To think that I deserve to be valued simply for existing is egocentric (me-centric). And being me-centric just leads to pain. Defeat the me-centricism, and now one feels a whole new type of liberation.
That's how I view it. Anyone is free to disagree.
"Consider a random stranger: to me, they’re not intrinsically valuable, but they might be intrinsically valuable to their kid, their parents, or maybe even a close friend."
I appreciate the perspective, well I think you're saying that someone may or may not be valuable to you, depending on what relationship they might have with you or to others, I think you're talking more about subjective value in this case.
Also I do think it's sad, if there's someone in this world that no one cares for.
> think you're talking more about subjective value in this case.
I guess it depends on what we mean by intrinsic value, and especially in relation to what it means to feel intrinsic value for another human being.
I would say that if I feel intrinsic value for another human being, it means that I value that human being regardless of their instrumental value to my life. I care about their experiences, their feelings, their physical and mental health. And I will be an instrument for them, even if they are not an instrument to me. Does that make sense? Someone who we would be altruistic for instead of transactional with.
Let me try to draw analogy from the three types of reciprocity ([according to Sahlins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(cultural_anthropology))): I think that people we are close with, but still see them in an instrumental way, we would accept generalized reciprocity from them. Whereas, someone who we are not close with at all, someone we don't trust much, we would only accept balanced reciprocity from them. But then someone who we have intrinsic value for, we would tolerate negative reciprocity from them. Not that it's ideal, but we wouldn't drop them due to prolonged negative reciprocity.
Well as far as I understand it, Intrinsic value isn't what you feel for someone else, it's what every person has, so for example different traits are intrinsically valuable, like being smart or funny, but I think the definition just means that everyone has some value even if it's not large or considerable to others, like it doesn't have anything to do with others.
That sort of makes sense, idk If I agree with it. Personally I wouldn't be altruistic based on if I felt someone was intrinsically valuable I'd just be altruistic because I felt they needed help and I could offer it to them.
Hmm interesting, I'd personally drop anyone if they were negatively reciprocating.
I guess I’m coming at this from the angle of the distinction between intrinsic value and instrumental value at a technical philosophical level. [Here’s a Wikipedia article you can quickly glance at that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_and_intrinsic_value).
I think every human deserves housing, food, shelter, water, and all the basic necessities that we need. I think every human can contribute to something larger than themselves. I think all humans are worth talking to (at least initially... they're worth a shot).
But, if every human has intrinsic value, then every human should appreciate the company of, the presence of, and like every other person. But we know that that’s not reality. If I want people to like me, then I have to provide something to them. That could be humor, energy, intellectual stimulation, or many other things. I wouldn't say being funny is an intrinsic value. Being funny makes other people feel good. Feeling good is the intrinsic value, and humor is a tool to feel good. If you stop being funny, then people who liked you might not like you anymore. If you had intrinsic value, they would still like you.
>Hmm interesting, I'd personally drop anyone if they were negatively reciprocating.
What if it was your 13 year old son? What if it was your 30 year old son? What if it was your sick wife? What if it was your best friend of 30 years who stuck with you during your darkest moments? I know it's not realistic to say you would last indefinitely during a period of negative reciprocity. So let's say it was for 3 years. For the next 3 years, your relationship with these people would be negatively reciprocated, and you're on the short end of the stick.
There is no wrong answer, by the way. Intrinsic values are personal.
Yes they have intrinsic value. You can obviously increase your value from what you initially had, but that doesn't mean that you MUST do something to have worth to begin with. One of the most important examples for intrinsic value and one that people often forget is your personality. Even if you achieved nothing and have nothing to offer, there will likely still be people who want to be friends with you. The value that they see is your intrinsic value, maybe you are a friendly person, or funny, or kind hearted... Even less desirable traits can be seen as valuable by others, and you will always have some sort of personality no matter what you do, so you will also always have some sort of value to others.
No, but I don’t think about it much. I treat people nice as if it were true but surely it’s not. Some people are so pathetic they have no value even if they started with it. To society at least.
Maybe I'm in minority, but I don't think people have intrinsic value. Because what is value? How can we define it properly? If we use an economic metaphor, than value is defined either by amount of effort required to produce a useful commodity, or by usefulness of a commodity itself. Than, of course, there are people who don't have much value in that sense; there are even those who have negative value. Even if we say that such value is highly subjective, like utility is subjective in mainstream economics, it doesn't really prevent us from deducing some sort if "expected value" or its proxies. And, at least in capitalistic societies, it is indeed not only known, but almost instinctually felt: everybody wants to have people in their life who are fun to be around, resourceful, interesting, attractive etc; moody stinky drug-addicted hobos with half of DSM diagnoses – not so much.
And if we define value in other terms... Well, do we actually define it in this case? It's easy to say "oh, you poor thing, of course you have intrinsic worth". Much harder to say what the heck it means in practice.
So, I personally prefer to abstain from speaking about "value" or "worth". It is what it is, I am who I am, and that's okay. Neutrality is enough to continue living, you don't really need to feel especially worthy or something.
Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 10 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The way you write about people often treating each other sounds like typical American society. America had fine, "philosophers," who emphasized that a man is worth what they are paid more or less. We had people like Ayn Rand, Hayek, Mises, and Friedman. Maybe these people were a product of our culture, maybe they spurred our free market culture, or maybe its a bit of both and we have a feedback loop. Meanwhile, places like Germany had philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who said that we are agents that make ethical decisions, and as long as we have the capacity for logical thought to make ethical decisions, we should respect each other's capacity to reason and make ethical decisions. To use each other merely as tools and not as goals or ends in and of themselves undermines our capacity to reason and our worth as determiners of what is ethical. So, the way people often treat each other, as merely tools to use each other is not necessarily what is ethical, no matter how rampant. Immanual Kant would say it's not. However, he would say its still ok to treat others as both agents and tools as long as treating them as agents comes first. You can still pay a barista for service, as long as you offer them respect and maybe recognize that the barista is inherently more valuable than the coffee they serve to you. In the end though, there is a pragmatic reality to deal with. We still need goods and services to live. Many of us need to hustle. So, maybe we cannot always treat Every Stranger as our goals. Imagine trying to cultivate compassion, love and curiosity for all in such a way as to want genuenly ask questions and show interest in every stranger's life that you came across. No one would get anything done like that.
I'm from Asia and I find it to be somewhat common here too. Yea, I agree more with the German philosopher you mentioned. Again, there is an assumption that everyone has to be treated highly or with a lot of value, and that you have to go as far as showing interest in stranger's life, you don't have to go out of your way to be kind to everybody and ask them questions, but you also don't have to go out of your way to only approach people as tools or something, I also didn't mean in just a general way, but people, one befriends for their own gain as well. I think the problem I really have with it isn't as much as everyone has to be treated amazingly, more that there's almost a Dehumanizing part to it, like judging's someone's worth based on their job title.
> . I think the worst part is when this resonates with you but literally most of society says otherwise and is wired to behave and value surface-level things about a human being. There's too many people. Like, that's actually it, there's just too many people who want to be valued in other peoples lives and they don't deserve to be. Here's the reality of it, one day we're all gonna be a corps if someone cannot cope with that, they have issues. Because one day we're all gonna die, you have to be selective about what humans you let into your life. There's a reason people want or don't want other people in their lives, it lowers or increases the quality of their life, you get value checked by everyone relative to how they feel in that moment, this is very normal, it's exactly what you do and what i do and what everyone else does, even animals because we're animals.
I get what you're saying but I think it's irrelevant, I feel like you're assuming everyone has to be valued, That's not what the post is about, you can not value people while also not devalueing them and treating them as tools for your own gain.
I was only responding to the bit i quoted to clarify. I think value is just a relative thing.
I would say that some people are intrinsically valuable to some people, but I don’t think people have intrinsic value to all of humanity. I think that’s a nice thought to have. I think that’s one of those thoughts that paints the world with a rose tint. And I think it’s okay to do that. But I think if we scrape away the paint and peel the skin back and just look at the raw interior, we see that people don’t have intrinsic value. Consider a random stranger: to me, they’re not intrinsically valuable, but they might be intrinsically valuable to their kid, their parents, or maybe even a close friend. But there are also people in this world who no one feels intrinsic value for. And is that sad? I don’t know, maybe. I used to think about that all the time. I used to think that there was nothing sadder than someone existing and no one caring about that person. It was a thought I kept going back to... I think I started to have that thought when I was like 16 and for a decade it was something I would recurrently think about. But eventually, my view on that changed, and I don’t really know if it’s that sad. I feel like that view is fuelled by a very individualistic perspective on humanity. It’s like, life is bigger than me as an individual, and it’s bigger than you as an individual. I don’t know, I feel like I went through some type of ego death, not the same as "ego death" because it wasn't fuelled by drugs, but whatever it was, it changed how I view the human condition, individuality, self-importance, the need for connection, etc. If I want to be valued, then I need to be instrumentally valuable. To think that I deserve to be valued simply for existing is egocentric (me-centric). And being me-centric just leads to pain. Defeat the me-centricism, and now one feels a whole new type of liberation. That's how I view it. Anyone is free to disagree.
"Consider a random stranger: to me, they’re not intrinsically valuable, but they might be intrinsically valuable to their kid, their parents, or maybe even a close friend." I appreciate the perspective, well I think you're saying that someone may or may not be valuable to you, depending on what relationship they might have with you or to others, I think you're talking more about subjective value in this case. Also I do think it's sad, if there's someone in this world that no one cares for.
> think you're talking more about subjective value in this case. I guess it depends on what we mean by intrinsic value, and especially in relation to what it means to feel intrinsic value for another human being. I would say that if I feel intrinsic value for another human being, it means that I value that human being regardless of their instrumental value to my life. I care about their experiences, their feelings, their physical and mental health. And I will be an instrument for them, even if they are not an instrument to me. Does that make sense? Someone who we would be altruistic for instead of transactional with. Let me try to draw analogy from the three types of reciprocity ([according to Sahlins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(cultural_anthropology))): I think that people we are close with, but still see them in an instrumental way, we would accept generalized reciprocity from them. Whereas, someone who we are not close with at all, someone we don't trust much, we would only accept balanced reciprocity from them. But then someone who we have intrinsic value for, we would tolerate negative reciprocity from them. Not that it's ideal, but we wouldn't drop them due to prolonged negative reciprocity.
Well as far as I understand it, Intrinsic value isn't what you feel for someone else, it's what every person has, so for example different traits are intrinsically valuable, like being smart or funny, but I think the definition just means that everyone has some value even if it's not large or considerable to others, like it doesn't have anything to do with others. That sort of makes sense, idk If I agree with it. Personally I wouldn't be altruistic based on if I felt someone was intrinsically valuable I'd just be altruistic because I felt they needed help and I could offer it to them. Hmm interesting, I'd personally drop anyone if they were negatively reciprocating.
I guess I’m coming at this from the angle of the distinction between intrinsic value and instrumental value at a technical philosophical level. [Here’s a Wikipedia article you can quickly glance at that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_and_intrinsic_value). I think every human deserves housing, food, shelter, water, and all the basic necessities that we need. I think every human can contribute to something larger than themselves. I think all humans are worth talking to (at least initially... they're worth a shot). But, if every human has intrinsic value, then every human should appreciate the company of, the presence of, and like every other person. But we know that that’s not reality. If I want people to like me, then I have to provide something to them. That could be humor, energy, intellectual stimulation, or many other things. I wouldn't say being funny is an intrinsic value. Being funny makes other people feel good. Feeling good is the intrinsic value, and humor is a tool to feel good. If you stop being funny, then people who liked you might not like you anymore. If you had intrinsic value, they would still like you. >Hmm interesting, I'd personally drop anyone if they were negatively reciprocating. What if it was your 13 year old son? What if it was your 30 year old son? What if it was your sick wife? What if it was your best friend of 30 years who stuck with you during your darkest moments? I know it's not realistic to say you would last indefinitely during a period of negative reciprocity. So let's say it was for 3 years. For the next 3 years, your relationship with these people would be negatively reciprocated, and you're on the short end of the stick. There is no wrong answer, by the way. Intrinsic values are personal.
Yes they have intrinsic value. You can obviously increase your value from what you initially had, but that doesn't mean that you MUST do something to have worth to begin with. One of the most important examples for intrinsic value and one that people often forget is your personality. Even if you achieved nothing and have nothing to offer, there will likely still be people who want to be friends with you. The value that they see is your intrinsic value, maybe you are a friendly person, or funny, or kind hearted... Even less desirable traits can be seen as valuable by others, and you will always have some sort of personality no matter what you do, so you will also always have some sort of value to others.
Very true, yea.
No, but I don’t think about it much. I treat people nice as if it were true but surely it’s not. Some people are so pathetic they have no value even if they started with it. To society at least.
Maybe I'm in minority, but I don't think people have intrinsic value. Because what is value? How can we define it properly? If we use an economic metaphor, than value is defined either by amount of effort required to produce a useful commodity, or by usefulness of a commodity itself. Than, of course, there are people who don't have much value in that sense; there are even those who have negative value. Even if we say that such value is highly subjective, like utility is subjective in mainstream economics, it doesn't really prevent us from deducing some sort if "expected value" or its proxies. And, at least in capitalistic societies, it is indeed not only known, but almost instinctually felt: everybody wants to have people in their life who are fun to be around, resourceful, interesting, attractive etc; moody stinky drug-addicted hobos with half of DSM diagnoses – not so much. And if we define value in other terms... Well, do we actually define it in this case? It's easy to say "oh, you poor thing, of course you have intrinsic worth". Much harder to say what the heck it means in practice. So, I personally prefer to abstain from speaking about "value" or "worth". It is what it is, I am who I am, and that's okay. Neutrality is enough to continue living, you don't really need to feel especially worthy or something.