A Secular Argument for Intrinsic Human Value

I’m skeptical of the possibility of convincing people who don’t believe in God that human beings have intrinsic value (see “Atheism and Universal Human Rights” for more on why I’m skeptical). But Wesley J. Smith keeps insisting it’s possible, and I can’t help but hope he’s right when he says things like this:

Happily, human exceptionalism does not require belief in a transcendent God, or indeed, spiritual allusions of any kind if we understand that what matters morally is not the capacities of the individual—which, after all, are transitory—but our intrinsic natures as human beings—which are innate.

If we can convince people our value comes not from the abilities we’re expressing at a particular moment in time but from the kind of being we are—and that’s a big “if” that Smith doesn’t make a case for in his following argument, though you can read an argument for it here—then a case for universal intrinsic human value can be made.

From Wesley J. Smith’s “More than ‘In God’s Image’”:

[A]s recent headlines about Planned Parenthood and the push for assisted suicide demonstrate, now is the time to defend intrinsic human value….

A belief in human exceptionalism…does not depend on religious faith. Whether we were created by God, came into being through blind evolution, or were intelligently designed, the importance of human existence can and should be supported by the rational examination of the differences between us and all other known life forms.

After all, what other species in known history has had the wondrous capacities of human beings? What other species has been able to (at least partially) control nature instead of being controlled by it? What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, communicates in language, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? What other species has true freedom? Not one….

Perhaps the most important distinction between the fauna and us is our moral agency. The sow that permits the runt of her litter to starve is not a negligent parent, but a human mother doing the same would be branded a monster. The feline that plays with a fallen baby bird before consuming it is not being sadistic; she is acting like a cat! But any human who tortures an animal is rightly seen as pathological. 

Read the rest of his article here.

Comments

[Coca-Cola]

I don't really see the secular argument for intrinsic human value here. Peter Kreeft, that you link to, argues that functionalism doesn't make sense of our moral judgments. But if atheism is true then it may also be that essentialism (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't have any basis either. Kreeft takes it for granted that it's wrong to kill an innocent human being.

Smith says a belief in human exceptionalism doesn't depend on religious faith, but then he points to accomplishments (functions) to illustrate his point. But Kreeft has already told us that these accomplishments can't be the grounds of our value. They are signs of the type of things we are. And there is no doubt that humans are different than animals. But there is doubt that they are of any more value than animals.

Nevertheless, I'm happy to let a secularist be inconsistent at this point. If an atheist is willing to take the premise "human beings have intrinsic worth" for granted in an argument over abortion then I'm not going to argue him out of that.

Anyone can witness a murder and have the moral vision to "see" the wrongness of that act and, thereby, correctly identify the act as wrong. But this doesn't mean the wrongness of the event can stand on its own. Likewise, we can see human exceptionalism just by our experience of being humans and examining human history. But that doesn't mean human exceptionalism stands on its own regardless of one's broader philosophy/theology.

[kpolo]

I'm with Coca-cola. I don't see any argument for intrinsic human value in secular atheistic worldview that is based on methodological naturalism. If the universe has no ultimate need to exist and if everything we observe is simply a matter of chance and serendipity, to claim that an artifact found in this universe as intrinsic, i.e., innate value is preposterous.

[Steve Keusch]

This is certainly a very important topic. The reason being that Americans understand the value of a dollar, but human value is more difficult for them.

[Cheryl Weber]

Where this argument for intrinsic human value without God breaks down is that if there is no perfect, infallible higher being to lay a foundation of law, then how do we know whose "morals" are the right ones? This leads to situational ethics, morals that are open to personal interpretation and preference or the rulings of a governing body composed of individuals vulnerable to corruption, perversion, selfishness and lust for power.

Also, if a human being is incapable of traditional contributions to society or of certain achievements due to disability, age or health issues, a value without God leads all too quickly to abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide--no matter how much we decry these "practices" as an affront against human beings.

Additionally, being made in the image of God gives us a much higher value than just achievement and being the most highly evolved "mammal.". It's kind of like those cheap plastic beads you buy to decorate at Christmas in comparison to the highest quality pearls money can buy.

Finally, Smith's basis for human value barely gives hope for this life, let alone anything beyond death.