Do people have an inherent right to live?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Do people have an inherent right to live?

«‹›6 »

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

Would any sane person rather die hungry than steal to eat? Would you?

I would rather suffer than victimize others, yes. Even if you want to argue that, were I desperate enough, I would do something I consider morally wrong, that wouldn't invalidate the moral code I subscribe to: it would just make me a hypocrite.

quote:

It's not about logical consistency because humans aren't robots that you just feed a moral program.
If a large percentage of the population struggles to survive, you invite instability, and no amount of tantrumming will forestall it.

That's not a moral argument though: that's a practical one. Keeping people comfortable so that they don't attack you isn't a moral principle.

People are irrational, emotional and generally incapable of looking past their self-interest, but a moral code is supposed to provide rules to live by that are better than our base instincts, and if it isn't logically consistent, what's the point?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 03:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 18:20

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Dead Reckoning posted:

I would rather suffer than victimize others, yes. Even if you want to argue that, were I desperate enough, I would do something I consider morally wrong, that wouldn't invalidate the moral code I subscribe to: it would just make me a hypocrite.

Does this extend to self-defense?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 05:17

America Inc.: Nov 22, 2013; I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even 500 would be pretty nice.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I would rather suffer than victimize others, yes. Even if you want to argue that, were I desperate enough, I would do something I consider morally wrong, that wouldn't invalidate the moral code I subscribe to: it would just make me a hypocrite.
That's not a moral argument though: that's a practical one. Keeping people comfortable so that they don't attack you isn't a moral principle.

People are irrational, emotional and generally incapable of looking past their self-interest, but a moral code is supposed to provide rules to live by that are better than our base instincts, and if it isn't logically consistent, what's the point?

If you consider human life as more valuable than material objects, than you can say stealing in the general case is wrong but stealing to save a life is not, without being inconsistent.
Talking in absolutes about morality seems kind of pointless, because there is always a special case or situation that falls through the cracks.It seems like a better idea to use morals as a guideline, and leave the execution to individual discretion, which is how people do it anyway.
People come first, not abstracted concepts on high.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 05:33

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

does self defense exist?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 05:35

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Effectronica posted:

Does this extend to self-defense?

I don't consider defending myself against an attack victimizing someone.

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

If you consider human life as more valuable than material objects, than you can say stealing in the general case is wrong but stealing to save a life is not, without being inconsistent.
Talking in absolutes about morality seems kind of pointless, because there is always a special case or situation that falls through the cracks.It seems like a better idea to use morals as a guideline, and leave the execution to individual discretion, which is how people do it anyway.
People come first, not abstracted concepts on high.

I think even if you place a high value on life, you can make a case against stealing when you are hungry. Isn't the thief just making someone else hungry by taking their food? Does the thief have discretion in who they steal from? Is the thief justified in using violence to execute their theft? Do people not have the right to secure their homes and possessions against theft by strangers? What happens when the thief is hungry again tomorrow? How do you keep individual discretion from turning into normalization of deviance, especially since different individuals will make different choices?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 09:55

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

You make sure everyone is fed. Anyone who continues to steal food is clearly doing it for different reasons and a comprehensive and fair criminal justice system can determine why that is and the best course of action to take.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 13:22

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Dead Reckoning posted:

I don't consider defending myself against an attack victimizing someone.

Okay. So why is killing someone to preserve your life acceptable but not stealing a quart of blueberries from them to, again, preserve your own life?

Are blueberries worth more than human life to you?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 13:49

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Do you seriously not understand the distinction between killing someone who is actively trying to harm you and stealing from an uninvolved third party who has done nothing to you?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 14:08

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

The difference is that you presumably believe that injuring another party means you forfeit your personhood.

Which presumably means that it is justifiable for someone to kill you in self defence if you break into their house to steal from them, even if you have a good reason.

You need to qualify your beliefs a little for them to be consistent.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 14:13

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Dead Reckoning posted:

Do you seriously not understand the distinction between killing someone who is actively trying to harm you and stealing from an uninvolved third party who has done nothing to you?

In the one case, you are killing someone, and in the other, you are inflicting limited economic harm on someone. Do you not understand the difference between these two activities?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 14:23

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

The difference is that you presumably believe that injuring another party means you forfeit your personhood.

Which presumably means that it is justifiable for someone to kill you in self defence if you break into their house to steal from them, even if you have a good reason.

You need to qualify your beliefs a little for them to be consistent.

This is a really stupid tangent, but one of the essential elements of self defense (which is what effectronica asked about) is that it is violence in order to stop an attacker who presents an ongoing, clear and present threat. I believe that, when you are engaged in unlawful physical violence against another person or their property, you forfeit many kinds of moral and legal protection, including possibly your right to life depending on the nature of the offense. I also feel that it is entirely reasonable for a homeowner to consider a person who breaks into their home to be a hostile and dangerous threat by default, and if they choose, to use deadly force to defend themselves. The intruder's reasons are irrelevant, and the homeowner has no obligation to investigate them, since the intruder has already demonstrated a willingness to use unlawful force and invade the home of another.

Effectronica posted:

In the one case, you are killing someone, and in the other, you are inflicting limited economic harm on someone. Do you not understand the difference between these two activities?

Actions taken in response to an imminent threat from an aggressor take on a different character due to both urgency and the aggressor's agency.

EDIT: I guess if you're in some sort of weird edge case where if you don't get those blueberries in the next ninety seconds there is a better than even chance you will die, I might reconsider my stance about stealing.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Mar 8, 2015

# ? Mar 8, 2015 14:39

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

Dead Reckoning posted:

EDIT: I guess if you're in some sort of weird edge case where if you don't get those blueberries in the next ninety seconds there is a better than even chance you will die, I might reconsider my stance about stealing.

So you would say that obligation is dependent on circumstance. Interesting

# ? Mar 8, 2015 15:42

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Dead Reckoning posted:

EDIT: I guess if you're in some sort of weird edge case where if you don't get those blueberries in the next ninety seconds there is a better than even chance you will die, I might reconsider my stance about stealing.

Okay, so you're of the position that the only thing that you need to defend yourself against is imminent death. So that being the case, if someone were to inject you with HIV or some other such long-term but terminal disease, would that count as- ah, but of course. It involves aggression. Besides, the best part is that your life is, to you, worth less than a pint of blueberries, and the lives of other people worth even less. Have you considered a career as a discount hitman?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 15:51

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

Dead Reckoning posted:

Actions taken in response to an imminent threat from an aggressor take on a different character due to both urgency and the aggressor's agency.

EDIT: I guess if you're in some sort of weird edge case where if you don't get those blueberries in the next ninety seconds there is a better than even chance you will die, I might reconsider my stance about stealing.

Securing yourself is a pretty universally justified case for violence. But you mentioned securing your property using force, which is a different animal. Sure, if someone invades your home to steal your property, the line between defending your life and your property is muddied. But if a thief is unambiguously after your blueberries (say he broke into your corner market after hours, and not your home), using violence to protect property is a very different moral proposition. The right to life (even for a criminal) trumps property rights in virtually any moral framework.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 19:18

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

Infinite Karma posted:

Securing yourself is a pretty universally justified case for violence.

Not for Gandhi or Jesus it's not.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 19:27

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I guess if you're in some sort of weird edge case where if you don't get those blueberries in the next ninety seconds there is a better than even chance you will die, I might reconsider my stance about stealing.

What's the longest you've ever gone without food? Twelve hours?

Why is death, not agony, the bar that needs to be cleared here?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 19:41

bobtheconqueror: May 10, 2005

TwoQuestions posted:

One thing I realized just today, that most everyone's arguments about a social "right to life" stem from wanting other people to help you if you were in trouble. What if you don't want anyone to help you? If you would rather bleed out from a cut rather than obligate someone else to help you not die (like so many Republicans), where does a right to life come from then?

Those people are liars or mentally ill. Human behavior is social. Children cry when they're hurt. Even tough guys have the instinct to cry out in pain when they get hurt. When we experience pain, we have the instinct to communicate it to those around us, and any child can understand that if you're hurt and can't help yourself, you want someone else to help you. Prideful idiots that don't understand human weakness and basic loving socialization don't have worthwhile opinions on the matter.

Can you articulate why an argument from a place of profound ignorance is worthwhile?

TwoQuestions posted:

If someone else feels like being an rear end in a top hat and shoots you and you have no ability to fire back in any way, suck to be you! Nobody's obligated to keep you alive if you can't keep yourself alive.

This is barbaric, cruel, and most importantly, stupid.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 19:49

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Effectronica posted:

Besides, the best part is that your life is, to you, worth less than a pint of blueberries, and the lives of other people worth even less. Have you considered a career as a discount hitman?

You've got the calculus wrong. The possibility that a person may die at some indeterminate future point is an acceptable risk in order to maintain a society in which people can live their lives generally free from robbery and burglary. Since we're doing hilarious hyperbole examples, let's say I'm sick, and without a blood transfusion I will likely die in the next six months. Unfortunately, I have an ultra rare blood type, and there is only one suitable match in the entire country. Donating blood carries negligible risk for him, but he refuses to donate on religious grounds. Am I justified at forcing him to let a stranger stick a needle in his arm at gunpoint and take his blood in order to save my own life, or does he have a right to bodily integrity?

Infinite Karma posted:

Securing yourself is a pretty universally justified case for violence. But you mentioned securing your property using force, which is a different animal. Sure, if someone invades your home to steal your property, the line between defending your life and your property is muddied. But if a thief is unambiguously after your blueberries (say he broke into your corner market after hours, and not your home), using violence to protect property is a very different moral proposition. The right to life (even for a criminal) trumps property rights in virtually any moral framework.

I disagree. The principle isn't about the specific piece of property being taken, it's about the right of individuals to own property free from the threat of theft. Again, the victim is not obliged to determine the motives of their attackers, and even then "just stealing your livestock/car/etc." is a serious infringement of another person's rights and likely their livelihood. I would say that a shop owner would be entirely justified in using force to apprehend a thief if they discovered the crime in progress, and that the police would be justified in using force to apprehend the thief after the fact.

Muscle Tracer posted:

What's the longest you've ever gone without food? Twelve hours?

Why is death, not agony, the bar that needs to be cleared here?

A day or two, in a week during which, on the days I did eat, I'd estimate I was subsisting on below 1200 calories. So yes, I'm aware that being hungry really loving sucks.

Because suffering can be alleviated at a future point, but death and maiming are permanent. You're also ignoring the imminent, deliberate and aggressive elements. If a person was using violence to inflict ongoing pain on another, I'd agree that the victim had the right to defend themselves.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 23:26

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Dead Reckoning posted:

You've got the calculus wrong. The possibility that a person may die at some indeterminate future point is an acceptable risk in order to maintain a society in which people can live their lives generally free from robbery and burglary. Since we're doing hilarious hyperbole examples, let's say I'm sick, and without a blood transfusion I will likely die in the next six months. Unfortunately, I have an ultra rare blood type, and there is only one suitable match in the entire country. Donating blood carries negligible risk for him, but he refuses to donate on religious grounds. Am I justified at forcing him to let a stranger stick a needle in his arm at gunpoint and take his blood in order to save my own life, or does he have a right to bodily integrity?
I disagree. The principle isn't about the specific piece of property being taken, it's about the right of individuals to own property free from the threat of theft. Again, the victim is not obliged to determine the motives of their attackers, and even then "just stealing your livestock/car/etc." is a serious infringement of another person's rights and likely their livelihood. I would say that a shop owner would be entirely justified in using force to apprehend a thief if they discovered the crime in progress, and that the police would be justified in using force to apprehend the thief after the fact.
A day or two, in a week during which, on the days I did eat, I'd estimate I was subsisting on below 1200 calories. So yes, I'm aware that being hungry really loving sucks.

Because suffering can be alleviated at a future point, but death and maiming are permanent. You're also ignoring the imminent, deliberate and aggressive elements. If a person was using violence to inflict ongoing pain on another, I'd agree that the victim had the right to defend themselves.

Why is consistency more important than anything else in ethics? What dread disaster befalls us if we say that stealing bread if you need to eat is okay, but stealing TVs isn't? Does the Archangel Gabriel blow the Last Trump?

# ? Mar 9, 2015 00:43

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

If a negative right to life means I have an obligation not to take positive actions that I can reasonably foresee will lead to another's death, then it's pretty obvious I can't take the positive actions required to chase a man and his starving family from my fields and prevent them from getting food.

In fact, it seems like I can't even take the positive action to fence off the land in the first place and bar anyone else from making a living on it.

# ? Mar 9, 2015 00:59

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

Dead Reckoning posted:

A day or two, in a week during which, on the days I did eat, I'd estimate I was subsisting on below 1200 calories. So yes, I'm aware that being hungry really loving sucks.

Because suffering can be alleviated at a future point, but death and maiming are permanent. You're also ignoring the imminent, deliberate and aggressive elements. If a person was using violence to inflict ongoing pain on another, I'd agree that the victim had the right to defend themselves.

OK, so maybe a third of the way to actually starving.

The theft of a loaf of bread can also be alleviated at a future point, and is much less painful for the rightful owner of the bread than starving to death is for the thief. Are you saying that only the danger of permanent injury can justify theft?

# ? Mar 9, 2015 01:08

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

VitalSigns posted:

If a negative right to life means I have an obligation not to take positive actions that I can reasonably foresee will lead to another's death, then it's pretty obvious I can't take the positive actions required to chase a man and his starving family from my fields and prevent them from getting food.

In fact, it seems like I can't even take the positive action to fence off the land in the first place and bar anyone else from making a living on it.

You're right, in that framework, that recognized "right to life" has troubling implications on private ownership, and privacy of any kind, really.

It would be really nice if there was some organized way to save food for starving people so they didn't have to burglarize farms. Then the farms could have fences and a little more privacy, and each farm could contribute a little bit to the "food library" so no one farm was impacted too much.

Actually, if only farms are contributing to the food library, that's not very fair... non-farmers should contribute a little bit of whatever they make, too. Whoever is organizing the system could hopefully create some measuring system between different things, and then everybody could send in an equitable contribution, and that's really fair.

I don't feel like continuing the stupid taxation/currency analogy. The solution to providing starving people with food (i.e. life) and still allowing private property is taxation. There could be a literal food bank where poor people pick up loaves of bread, but if we're going to the trouble of collecting taxes from everyone to pay for food, we might as well cut out the middle-man and just give the tax money to starving people so they can buy the food themselves. We could even add a few safeguards so the money can only be used for food and not iPods. This is literally food stamps. Without a government large enough to collect taxes, and distribute them to programs like food stamps, you can't solve collective action problems like this. That's why we have governments in the first place.

# ? Mar 9, 2015 18:38

Randbrick: Sep 28, 2002

What right has man to jive?

# ? Mar 9, 2015 18:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 18:20

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

I have no inherent right to defend my life without the most efficient means to enforcement.

My 9mm agrees.

# ? Mar 9, 2015 18:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Do people have an inherent right to live?

«‹›6 »