Snorvey wrote:I mean, it's only a building ferchrissakes.
This is undoubtedly true. A human life is - in theory - more important.
But when I thought about it I concluded that it is only in theory, at least as far as I'm concerned. I felt genuine shock and grief when I saw Notre Dame in flames, as I did when I heard about Isis destroying the Central Library of Mosul and parts of Palmyra. The grief was real and visceral, almost like hearing of the sudden death of someone you were fond of, though obviously not someone who was (dreadful phrase) `a loved one'.
However, if I read about 50 people having been killed in a mudslide in China I feel a mild sense of pity, but otherwise little or no reaction.
It's an interesting moral question. If asked, I suppose most of us would reflexively say that human life is more important than anything else, but if I were to say that I'd be lying. It's not just historic and beautiful buildings and works of art that I feel can be more important to save than the life of a random human being, but it can even apply to animals.
For example, there was a story from South Africa a few days ago about a rhino poacher being gored to death by an elephant and then eaten by lions -
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/07/afri ... index.htmlI read that "
Glenn Phillips, the managing executive of Kruger National Park, extended his condolences to the man's family". This is the conventional reaction, just as conventional morality would dictate that a rhino's life is worth less than that of a man. But although I could feel some sympathy for his family I felt no sadness at all that he'd been killed - quite the opposite, and there's no doubt that to me as an individual a rhino's life was more important than his was.
Likewise, I felt far more grief over the loss of my dog than I ever did over the deaths of various relatives, even those that I was fond of.
I feel rather uncomfortable about admitting this, because I can easily see that it's a slippery slope. If I accept that Notre Dame is more important to me than an unknown person 10,000 miles away it immediately means that there's a balancing act to be carried out, so that the value of a random person's life becomes measurable in absolute terms against mere objects.
I can also see all too clearly that in effect what I'm saying is that I would rather a random person died than Notre Dame was burnt down. So what about two random people - or ten? At what point would I say let it burn?
Put like that it sounds like I'm something of a psychopath, though I don't think I am. But it does give rise to some very interesting thoughts. For example a random person is simply a concept, and easy to lose, but if I were to be confronted with a real - though completely unknown - person and given the choice between their execution or Notre Dame being destroyed would I still be so casual about their being killed?
Instinctively I'd say no, of course not, but even in that situation I don't think there are any absolutes. I can envisage situations where I would rationalise that killing a person to save an object might be justified.
And what if the unfortunate subject happened to be a vicious criminal? Would that alter the moral balance? It shouldn't - if a human life is sacrosanct then it's sacrosanct, even if the rest of the world would be better off if he was dead - but being as honest as I can I think it would influence my decision.
It's much easier to say that a human life is automatically more important than anything else, but in truth it isn't, at least not to me.
I'd be interested to hear other's views (ideally before the men with straitjackets arrive to cart me off!)
) 
