p1: Things that are of value can be taken away
p2: Human life can be taken away
p3: Human life is valuable
Do you think this argument is truth preserving? If not, can a truth preserving argument for human life valuable be made?
I appreciate your insight.
Looks like bad logic to me.
Things that are apples can be eaten.
Pies can be eaten.
Pies are apples.
I doubt you're going to stumble upon a deductively valid argument for human worth where everone agrees on all the premises and definitions.
Perhaps one could, however, make an anthropological argument for human value (to humans). Seems rather obvious that peoples who value human life will survive over peoples who don't.
™ Version 4.2
