What makes you value someone as a person?

[Lurk Hurk Gurk]

That is, the "base value", that people, in your view, have by default before displaying whatever characteristics make you value them less or more on an individual basis.

Many see human life as "sacred", and on the fundamental level, all people as being worth equally much.

I value someone as a person, based upon how much of a person s/he is. A newborn has yet to develop a sapient mind, nor a personality. They are neither less nor more than biological machines, and as such have no value as a person. Killing a newborn human in itself is thus neither less nor more wrong than killing a newborn of some other species. As a personality and a mind capable of judgement are developed, a human becomes a person. As the development continues over the cource of the human's life, s/he gains in value as a person. Seeing as the "person" that an intelligent lifeform develop is what I place the value upon, killing that is what I would see as killing the individual; if there is no such "person" present, then the death of the life-form in question is merely the destruction of a machinery. This is the basic, universal criteria that I use to value other kinds of life forms as well. Were someone to construct some form of AI as capable as a person, I would value the personality it would develop in the same way as that of a person.

[QuirkyCarla]

I value people who are caring and unselfish.

[Lurk Hurk Gurk]

That belongs on the second stage of valuing. Nothing wrong with discussing that as well, but the main question, put simply, is:
How do you value human beings (and possibly other life-forms) whose personality traits are undefined? (or perhaps rather, before they are defined)

[purposefulinsanity]

I think that how 'much' of a person someone is is something that you measure against a baseline assessment like that, simply because you can't see the qualities you believe are valuable in a person it doesn't mean that they aren't there.  You believe newborns are yet to develop a personality- can I just ask how much time you've spent with newborns?  You can see some personality traits from a very young age.

To me, the potential in people makes them just as valuable as the anything that you can quantify so easily.

[McGiver]

i admire patience.  for two reasons.

the other people have to have patience with me if we are to get along.

and

i have none.

[Lurk Hurk Gurk]

I think that how 'much' of a person someone is is something that you measure against a baseline assessment like that, simply because you can't see the qualities you believe are valuable in a person it doesn't mean that they aren't there.

The main point of such a baseline is to serve as a generic way of valuing human life and basing the judgement of the treatment of it upon. For example, in a legal system.

You believe newborns are yet to develop a personality- can I just ask how much time you've spent with newborns?  You can see some personality traits from a very young age.

Traits, yes, and major building blocks. The "nature" part of what makes a baby develop into the person s/he will become. But not a personality in the same sense as that eventually developed. Just as the basic traits programmed into an evolving AI, shaping the development of its personality, is not a personality in the same sense as that it would eventually develop is.

To me, the potential in people makes them just as valuable as the anything that you can quantify so easily.

The problem is that potential is just that. You can only estimate the probability of it being fulfilled. There is no guarantee, and whatever the potential is for does not yet exist. Thus, destroying the potential for something only potentially destroys what the potential is for.

[Diesel]

Honesty & Integrity

[QuirkyCarla]

That belongs on the second stage of valuing. Nothing wrong with discussing that as well, but the main question, put simply, is:
How do you value human beings (and possibly other life-forms) whose personality traits are undefined? (or perhaps rather, before they are defined)

oh, my bad

[drewtheyellow]

I value the usefulness of people in regards to my own interests. If somebody is useless they don't have much value to me, if they are very useful: like a fun friend then they are very valuable, and if they are detrimental then they have negative value to me. The usefulness to me the best way for me to measure value and because there are so many different variables that make one useful I must pick this simple one as the measure. Now, in the case of a baby the value would have to come from future use: is this my child that I will want to brainwash? is it likely the next Einstein? etc.

I would say that human babies are typically more valuable than animal baby because the expected future value is likely much greater, at least in the set-up of our society, if one were a poor farmer then a baby animal might have greater expected future value as it requires less sacrifice to grow and there is a better market for the grown-up ones.

[richard]

being themselves, although i dont have any real friends phony people are a real turnoff for me

[Litigious]

Honesty, integrity faith, trust.

[odeon]

being themselves, although i dont have any real friends phony people are a real turnoff for me

Didn't you have a best friend?

[purposefulinsanity]

I wonder how you could possibly see 'value' in seperation from the character traits that you see as secondary?  That's not a dig btw, its a genuine question, because your only example was that of newborns. If you were going to use it in, for instance the example you used, a legal setting how could you possibly seperate secondary value from primary value?

[Lurk Hurk Gurk]

I wonder how you could possibly see 'value' in seperation from the character traits that you see as secondary?  That's not a dig btw, its a genuine question, because your only example was that of newborns. If you were going to use it in, for instance the example you used, a legal setting how could you possibly seperate secondary value from primary value?

It is a weak measurement, where the main use is to establish who is to have fundamental "rights" as a person to begin with. Continuing the example of newborns, once established that they have no value as a person, it follows that they have no rights as a person. (though I'd say that, once grown up to the level of having gained value as a person, they gain the right not only not to have inflicted, but also not to have been inflicted, any treatment deemed abusive) Thus, there is no reason to disallow post-birth abortions for up to a couple of months after birth. Similarly, people whose "person" has ceased to exist (ie. through extensive enough brain damage) lose all of their rights as a person as soon as this is clearly established.

The primary "valuing" excludes those having no value according to it from having any value according to the secondary. Apart from that, it typically becomes as good as irrelevant once the secondary is taken into account.

I might just as well adress in short what comes secondary to me as well. First of all comes harmlessness, ie. that the person does not constitute an immediate danger. Then comes usefulness, which is quite a broad area, along with, which to some extent is needed for the first requirement as well as for the second, reliability. Most things I value according to can be said to be a part of these, though the prioritization varies greatly.

If a person is harmless, but neither have any positive nor negative impact, the value from the primary judgement, which is basically that which is needed for a person to be respected as an individual, remains unmodified. Most people have a value ranging from near-zero to "somewhat detrimental", quite many being more so. A pretty large amount of people have a slight positive value, a smaller portion having one more significant.

[Leto729]

I like them being themselves.