Development of soul value theory

During the late Renaissance when ancient philosophies and arts were being rediscovered, among the most controversial ideas that was reconsidered and rethought was the notion of soul value. Soul value remains to be debatable today for many reasons, but represents a revisiting of Classical rhetoric. Soul value theory has developed from the idea of reincarnation that is part of Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as some of the ancient Greek philosophers. In its elemental form it attests that everything has a soul, including things that have no free will and things that possess no will at all.

Hierarchy of souls

Minerals, plants, animals, and humans all have souls and as such have soul value. Rocks possess less soul value then trees as they aren’t living; trees live but possess no will or ability to move and so possess less soul value then animals; animals live and have a will but have no free will (their actions are willed only according to their instinctive nature), thus they possess less soul value then humans. Humans possess all of these necessary qualities and thus have the highest soul value. They stand on the top of the hierarchy of souls.

Those things that are at the bottom of the hierarchy of souls possess only trace amounts of soul whereas those that exist at the top possess complete souls. An organism itself can only have at most one soul; in the disputed case of a pregnant mother it is now agreed upon in most soul value schools of thought that both the mother and her child in her possess a complete soul. In the case of humans the mother’s soul value is higher than her offspring, as her rational faculties are more developed.

Soul value theory in practice

What is greatly disputed about soul value is how to practice it. When the theory was initially being developed the diversity of practice was striking. Some of its advocates were strict vegetarians while others were passionate cannibals. While today it is agreed among most soul value philosophers that there can be some variety in practice, they condemn both vegetarianism and cannibalism as they find these practices to undermine the fundamental understanding of soul value. Also, they believe that soul value is not maximized or minimized through consumption in and of itself but instead through the development of those things that give something soul value. Thus the promotion of a healthy life and of an educated and rational will increase the value of something’s soul. Doing the converse leads to less soul value.

Modern issues and ethics

Recently soul value has been debated at the University of St. Thomas’s Refectarium. As the contents of the food served within are abnormally unhealthy and, in cases like meefloaf, came from unusually unintelligent organisms it is hard to estimate the minute soul value of each food and ascertain which food one should consume if one is to be an ethical soul value disciple.

Contributing authors: B. Essington, R. Peterson, J. Tschiggfrie

See also:

    unoptionables

Return to main page.