Pages: 1 2

 

2010-04-08 18:59:18
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
What gives you the right to life?

The right to life is treated as a given in social contract, always implied or inserted off-hand in essentially every culture. It is given a free pass without any sort of real justification, probably due to the fact that its omission would obviously be the downfall of the social contract. The logic behind it isn't only good for its justification in the first place, though. If you force even the obvious to explain themselves it can shed light on other moral dilemma.

If the right to life is only to maintain social order, then why do other societies hold that same right? Is someone going to say we are truly a global order with a straight face?

If the right to life is divinely defined, then why are the punishments for its violation not equally biblical?

If the right to life is to protect potential aids to society, then what about people that have proven themselves a detriment to society? Criminals? Drug addicts? The severely handicapped?

If the right to life is to protect those which does not wish their own death, what about those that don't understand death at all? Babies?

If the right to life is to protect the species, what about those with obviously inferior genes? Genetic disorders, poor eyesight, short people, etc. We are in no danger of extinction.

If the right to life is derived from fear for our own life, why are people willing to die for that right? It makes zero sense to die for a completely selfish right.

If the right to life is derived from fear for the lives of the people we love, why is it a crime to kill people with nobody?
2010-04-08 19:01:00
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina
In most incarnations, it's the right to life with limitations...
2010-04-08 19:23:28
TSI
Cholera in the time of love
+247|6271|Toronto
Economics. If your right to life isn't created (not the best descriptor), guaranteed and protected by the state, you'll have a form of anarchy, or maybe feudalism. People need assurances that this right exists in order to lead productive lives.

I'm not saying that it exists, either. It's just a social construct, as you allude to in your first question.
I like pie.
2010-04-08 19:41:54
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6832|Texas - Bigger than France

TSI wrote:

Economics. If your right to life isn't created (not the best descriptor), guaranteed and protected by the state, you'll have a form of anarchy, or maybe feudalism. People need assurances that this right exists in order to lead productive lives.

I'm not saying that it exists, either. It's just a social construct, as you allude to in your first question.
Economically, the compounds within the average human body in 1992 was worth $.98.

Therefore strippers get paid too much.



But to actually participate in the debate, I believe human life is not part of a social or moral order, but we are a part of the environmental ecosystem.  But because we like to think about shit, we provide our own meaning to life.  Problem is there are different groups with moralistic views of the world (not all religious either) that lead to conflict.

So in our terms the right to life actually is the right for our immediate culture/morals/standards, etc to exist, because it's all based on what meaning we were taught and learned along the way.  So social order wins IMO.

As far as using a divine definition or one from an alternative culture (drug addict) its a point of view.  Arguably the prevailing group is the survival of the fittest, which brings us back to the naturalistic view of man I started out with.

Protecting a baby or making wars is merely someone viewing and acting based on their social order.
2010-04-08 22:02:02
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

TSI wrote:

Economics. If your right to life isn't created (not the best descriptor), guaranteed and protected by the state, you'll have a form of anarchy, or maybe feudalism. People need assurances that this right exists in order to lead productive lives.

I'm not saying that it exists, either. It's just a social construct, as you allude to in your first question.
So why do people from other societies have the same right?
2010-04-08 22:05:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

TSI wrote:

Economics. If your right to life isn't created (not the best descriptor), guaranteed and protected by the state, you'll have a form of anarchy, or maybe feudalism. People need assurances that this right exists in order to lead productive lives.

I'm not saying that it exists, either. It's just a social construct, as you allude to in your first question.
So why do people from other societies have the same right?
Well, if we're assuming economics is the reason -- it's much more profitable to trade with people than to kill them.
2010-04-08 22:07:59
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:

So in our terms the right to life actually is the right for our immediate culture/morals/standards, etc to exist, because it's all based on what meaning we were taught and learned along the way.  So social order wins IMO.
"Because I was told" is not a justification.
2010-04-08 22:09:42
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

TSI wrote:

Economics. If your right to life isn't created (not the best descriptor), guaranteed and protected by the state, you'll have a form of anarchy, or maybe feudalism. People need assurances that this right exists in order to lead productive lives.

I'm not saying that it exists, either. It's just a social construct, as you allude to in your first question.
So why do people from other societies have the same right?
Well, if we're assuming economics is the reason -- it's much more profitable to trade with people than to kill them.
What about cultures it's not profitable to trade with? African nations for example.

At least not as profitable as leveling the whole place and making our own diamond mines. Stability is good for economics. We don't because there is some perceived value of human life. Why.
2010-04-08 22:15:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


So why do people from other societies have the same right?
Well, if we're assuming economics is the reason -- it's much more profitable to trade with people than to kill them.
What about cultures it's not profitable to trade with? African nations for example.

At least not as profitable as leveling the whole place and making our own diamond mines. Stability is good for economics. We don't because there is some perceived value of human life. Why.
Well, I think that has more to do with reputation.  We don't do the whole genocide thing anymore because it's basically become unacceptable among "civilized" nations.

Plus, in a practical sense, you have to set certain ground rules for the behavior of nations.  Without them, war is much more common.
2010-04-08 22:25:42
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, if we're assuming economics is the reason -- it's much more profitable to trade with people than to kill them.
What about cultures it's not profitable to trade with? African nations for example.

At least not as profitable as leveling the whole place and making our own diamond mines. Stability is good for economics. We don't because there is some perceived value of human life. Why.
Well, I think that has more to do with reputation.  We don't do the whole genocide thing anymore because it's basically become unacceptable among "civilized" nations.

Plus, in a practical sense, you have to set certain ground rules for the behavior of nations.  Without them, war is much more common.
Yeah but that implies that there is value to human life. If human life didn't have value, then we wouldn't be risking our reputation at all. No one would care.
2010-04-08 22:36:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


What about cultures it's not profitable to trade with? African nations for example.

At least not as profitable as leveling the whole place and making our own diamond mines. Stability is good for economics. We don't because there is some perceived value of human life. Why.
Well, I think that has more to do with reputation.  We don't do the whole genocide thing anymore because it's basically become unacceptable among "civilized" nations.

Plus, in a practical sense, you have to set certain ground rules for the behavior of nations.  Without them, war is much more common.
Yeah but that implies that there is value to human life. If human life didn't have value, then we wouldn't be risking our reputation at all. No one would care.
It's mutual interest.  We each have a self-preservation interest, so we generally like to avoid war.  Avoiding war is easier if certain rules are set against murder and such.

Also, we do value life quite a bit when it's someone we know and love.  So I suppose that value in and of itself is one based almost purely on emotion.
2010-04-09 06:28:17
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, I think that has more to do with reputation.  We don't do the whole genocide thing anymore because it's basically become unacceptable among "civilized" nations.

Plus, in a practical sense, you have to set certain ground rules for the behavior of nations.  Without them, war is much more common.
Yeah but that implies that there is value to human life. If human life didn't have value, then we wouldn't be risking our reputation at all. No one would care.
It's mutual interest.  We each have a self-preservation interest, so we generally like to avoid war.  Avoiding war is easier if certain rules are set against murder and such.

Also, we do value life quite a bit when it's someone we know and love.  So I suppose that value in and of itself is one based almost purely on emotion.
So why do people fight and die for the right to life or even less, and why is it a crime to kill people that have nobody?
2010-04-09 06:51:07
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6832|Texas - Bigger than France

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

So in our terms the right to life actually is the right for our immediate culture/morals/standards, etc to exist, because it's all based on what meaning we were taught and learned along the way.  So social order wins IMO.
"Because I was told" is not a justification.
It's not "because I was told".

It's what I've learned to be right throughout life

"Justification" is a point of view
2010-04-09 07:21:35
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

So in our terms the right to life actually is the right for our immediate culture/morals/standards, etc to exist, because it's all based on what meaning we were taught and learned along the way.  So social order wins IMO.
"Because I was told" is not a justification.
It's not "because I was told".

It's what I've learned to be right throughout life

"Justification" is a point of view
It most certainly is not. Justification is a reason or a rationalization.
2010-04-09 08:49:39
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6832|Texas - Bigger than France
And if my reasons are different than yours?  Point of view.

That's what I meant

Point of view means there's a varied black and white to every decision so justification is all relative
2010-04-09 09:02:11
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
That's not the point. I am asking what your point of view is and the justification behind it, because it seems the general point of view is very schizophrenic. Point of view is relative but justification is not.
2010-04-09 09:07:05
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6832|Texas - Bigger than France

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's not the point. I am asking what your point of view is and the justification behind it, because it seems the general point of view is very schizophrenic. Point of view is relative but justification is not.
If your point of view is relative and your justification is based on your point of view....


It's absolutely the point

There is no right and wrong because right and wrong is relative.  What is right for one is wrong for another.

Your idea of right and wrong has several influences...but primarily it's all tied up in the struggle for social order between individuals and groups of individuals (aka societies)
2010-04-09 09:48:47
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
I do not care what your point of view was, but chances are the justification of your point of view is inconsistent. I listed several of what are probably the most common points of view to the question, and flaws in their justification that in my mind need to be reconciled.

Instead people picked various points of view and ignored the challenge that went with each, and you are trying to tell me that justification is meaningless because it is socially defined.
2010-04-09 10:07:19
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6832|Texas - Bigger than France
Why, because I'm agreeing with you?

You aren't arguing that the rationale is inconsistent based on numerous factors?

The need for social order establishes what people believe to be the correct decision no?  And isn't social order defined by perceptions within the group?  And perceptions are governed by established patterns of what is right and wrong over time?

Justification isn't meaningless.  I'm telling you its dependent on your point of view which can be tainted by the perceptions previously experienced.

How can I act this way when it impacts others?  A struggle between differing social orders.
2010-04-09 10:29:33
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:

You aren't arguing that the rationale is inconsistent based on numerous factors?
No.

There is no rationale. There is assumed to be one because in the absence of respect for human life, social contract seemingly fails. Instead, the lack of rationale apparently leads to contradictory actions.

It doesn't matter what the rationale is, unless you can show me my error in the respective challenges above or present and defend a new justification. In lieu of that, the point is how can something which has no justification be true.
2010-04-09 10:52:35
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6832|Texas - Bigger than France
In absence of rationale, no one ever makes a decision, because a decision involves reasoning?

We are debating no?

Based on what?  Random stuff that happens?

That makes no sense.

I've explained my point of view, justification is the result of previous experiences, largely influenced by what societal group you participate.  To debate what's right or wrong depends on what group you're in...therefore, your point of view.

In the examples you pointed out, there's two sides.  Either one side is right, one side is wrong, both sides are right, or both sides are wrong.  Your judgement depends on your previous experience.  And by establishing your judgement you've established justification for yourself.

So if you fall into the "both sides are right or wrong" category, then you've failed already by making your judgement because you would fall within a different societal category.

This isn't a vacuum.
2010-04-09 12:13:57
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:

because a decision involves reasoning?
only on occasion

Pug wrote:

This isn't a vacuum.
At some point it was. At some point killing other people was not morally wrong. At some point morals didn't exist. Not killing people has been truly justified by various reasons throughout time. I don't know that right now is one of those times.

"Because we have been conditioned that way" is still not a justification. 2+2=4 is not true because someone said it is true, someone could just as easily say 2+2=5.
2010-04-09 13:11:01
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6832|Texas - Bigger than France
In the vacuum, it's instinct.  Instinct is not rational.  Or is it?

I think that's were your headed...good luck.


To a four year old 2 + 2 does equal 5.

lol, nvm.
2010-04-09 13:12:29
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:

In the vacuum, it's instinct.  Instinct is not rational.  Or is it?

I think that's were your headed...good luck.
What about those with obviously inferior genes? Genetic disorders, poor eyesight, short people, etc. We are in no danger of extinction.


Pug wrote:

To a four year old 2 + 2 does equal 5.

lol, nvm.
Again, with no justification.
2010-04-09 13:48:27
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6832|Texas - Bigger than France
Never quite understood inferior genes...are you saying why do we defend their right to live?

Point of view allows fuzzy math to a four year old, so their belief is justified.  To the teacher, not true.  If the four year old attempts to rebel, the teacher sends them to the principal.  Societal friction in action - the stronger system wins.  But, if the four year old believes it, it's true (to him)

Occassionally the four year old wins due to bad genes, aka a savant.

Speaking of four year olds, I gotta go coach tee ball.
Later

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard