Assume you are given the following two options, and you are required to chose one:
1) Sacrifice your family and close relatives in order to save 100 million strangers living in foreign countries far away from your own home, with whom you have absolutely no contact.
2) Save your family and close relatives, but at the cost of not being able to save the lives of 100 million foreign strangers.
If you don't have a family, or have poor relations with them, you can substitute "family or close relatives" with "people who are close and valuable to you," as the fundamental dilemma would still be the same.
If I personally was presented with this dilemma, I would chose Option 2 without any hesitation. I certainly value the lives of my close family/kin far more than the lives of some foreign strangers whom I have never met. The deaths of my close family/kin would deeply affect my life, but the deaths of 100 million foreign strangers would not affect my life in the slightest. As far as my social universe is concerned, those 100 million people do not even exist.
My response to this dilemma, which I am sure would also be the response of most human beings, is deeply rooted in evolutionary proclivities that are hardwired into each and every one of us. However, this reality of the subjective value of human life strikes a blow at the liberal-humanist view that each human life is of objectively equal value. If you ask the average person in the 21st century post-modernist West whether or not all human beings are equal, you will hear a resounding "Yes." If you ask them of their opinions on various disasters and conflicts around the globe - the War in Syria, for example, or the terrorism of Boko Haram in Nigeria - you will hear overwhelming condemnation. If you ask whether or not something should be done about these events, the answers will again be in the affirmative. But if you ask the average individual whether he is willing to sacrifice his own family or relatives to end these atrocities, the individual naturally hesitates. Even if hundreds of thousands of people are dying in places like Syria, hardly any individual in the West would be willing to sacrifice his own family or relatives to end such atrocities, even after affirming that all human beings are equal, the implication being that some Syrians or Nigerians are no less valuable than one's own kin. The average individual only espouses this lofty idealism when he is in a position of comfort, and is not faced with any high opportunity cost; once faced with the uncomfortable dilemma and heavy opportunity cost that I presented above, the lofty liberal-humanist idealism finds itself gashed by the hard, cold rocks of reality.
This lofty liberal-humanist idealism is only possible if a man has no family, no tribe, no nation, and no holistic identity whatsoever - in other words, if he is nothing but a rootless individual. It is only such rootless individuals, for whom their own Individuality is their own God, who can indulge such fantasies of objectively equal human value. This is because the very notion of an objectively equal value for every human being requires the existence of a transcendental being - a God - who is above and beyond all human attachments; it is only such an entity who can overcome the dilemma presented above, and make the clearly logical and rational decision of sacrificing the few to save the many. Thus, only the rootless individual, who has none of the holistic identities and attachments of the ordinary human being (and is thus above and beyond humanity, being a God unto Himself), is able to make the same rational decision.
But what is the implication of such a world of rootless individuals without attachments, where all human beings have objectively equal value? If every human being is no more or less valuable than anyone else, why should a man love the mother of his child (she is not his "wife;" remember, there are no attachments in this post-modern "utopia") more than any other woman? Why should a man love his children more than any other child? Why should a child love his mother or father more than any other adult (assuming that in our post-modern "utopia," children even know who their parents are; again, remember that there are no attachments or familial ties in this world)?
Verily, the very notion of objectively equal human value is degrading to humanity. It destroys what it means to be a human, for the greatest expression of love that a human is capable of producing is the explicit affirmation of unequal value. When a husband is willing to kill 100 million individuals to save his wife, what greater expression of love is possible? When a father is willing to vanquish 100 million souls to secure the future of his child, what greater affirmation of that child's worth is possible? When a son is willing to fight a horde of 100 million foreigners to protect his parents, what greater articulation of filial piety is possible?
To be human is to love; to love is to form attachments; and to form attachments is to affirm the subjective inequality of human value.
1) Sacrifice your family and close relatives in order to save 100 million strangers living in foreign countries far away from your own home, with whom you have absolutely no contact.
2) Save your family and close relatives, but at the cost of not being able to save the lives of 100 million foreign strangers.
If you don't have a family, or have poor relations with them, you can substitute "family or close relatives" with "people who are close and valuable to you," as the fundamental dilemma would still be the same.
If I personally was presented with this dilemma, I would chose Option 2 without any hesitation. I certainly value the lives of my close family/kin far more than the lives of some foreign strangers whom I have never met. The deaths of my close family/kin would deeply affect my life, but the deaths of 100 million foreign strangers would not affect my life in the slightest. As far as my social universe is concerned, those 100 million people do not even exist.
My response to this dilemma, which I am sure would also be the response of most human beings, is deeply rooted in evolutionary proclivities that are hardwired into each and every one of us. However, this reality of the subjective value of human life strikes a blow at the liberal-humanist view that each human life is of objectively equal value. If you ask the average person in the 21st century post-modernist West whether or not all human beings are equal, you will hear a resounding "Yes." If you ask them of their opinions on various disasters and conflicts around the globe - the War in Syria, for example, or the terrorism of Boko Haram in Nigeria - you will hear overwhelming condemnation. If you ask whether or not something should be done about these events, the answers will again be in the affirmative. But if you ask the average individual whether he is willing to sacrifice his own family or relatives to end these atrocities, the individual naturally hesitates. Even if hundreds of thousands of people are dying in places like Syria, hardly any individual in the West would be willing to sacrifice his own family or relatives to end such atrocities, even after affirming that all human beings are equal, the implication being that some Syrians or Nigerians are no less valuable than one's own kin. The average individual only espouses this lofty idealism when he is in a position of comfort, and is not faced with any high opportunity cost; once faced with the uncomfortable dilemma and heavy opportunity cost that I presented above, the lofty liberal-humanist idealism finds itself gashed by the hard, cold rocks of reality.
This lofty liberal-humanist idealism is only possible if a man has no family, no tribe, no nation, and no holistic identity whatsoever - in other words, if he is nothing but a rootless individual. It is only such rootless individuals, for whom their own Individuality is their own God, who can indulge such fantasies of objectively equal human value. This is because the very notion of an objectively equal value for every human being requires the existence of a transcendental being - a God - who is above and beyond all human attachments; it is only such an entity who can overcome the dilemma presented above, and make the clearly logical and rational decision of sacrificing the few to save the many. Thus, only the rootless individual, who has none of the holistic identities and attachments of the ordinary human being (and is thus above and beyond humanity, being a God unto Himself), is able to make the same rational decision.
But what is the implication of such a world of rootless individuals without attachments, where all human beings have objectively equal value? If every human being is no more or less valuable than anyone else, why should a man love the mother of his child (she is not his "wife;" remember, there are no attachments in this post-modern "utopia") more than any other woman? Why should a man love his children more than any other child? Why should a child love his mother or father more than any other adult (assuming that in our post-modern "utopia," children even know who their parents are; again, remember that there are no attachments or familial ties in this world)?
Verily, the very notion of objectively equal human value is degrading to humanity. It destroys what it means to be a human, for the greatest expression of love that a human is capable of producing is the explicit affirmation of unequal value. When a husband is willing to kill 100 million individuals to save his wife, what greater expression of love is possible? When a father is willing to vanquish 100 million souls to secure the future of his child, what greater affirmation of that child's worth is possible? When a son is willing to fight a horde of 100 million foreigners to protect his parents, what greater articulation of filial piety is possible?
To be human is to love; to love is to form attachments; and to form attachments is to affirm the subjective inequality of human value.
