Do people have an inherent right to live?

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

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

TwoQuestions posted:

Changing gears, how do you go about convincing someone without compassion of a compassionate solution to a problem? If crime in a nearby city you never visit can be reduced substantially by a $10 million investment in infastructure/law enforcement training/whatever, and this investment is proven to work, how do you convince someone who just says "gently caress those city people! If they can't solve their problems without State help they deserve to die!"?

IN practical terms, you have to rub their nose in it, break the privilege bubble. Compulsory public service can be a good way to do this and it's one major reason why a lot of ivy-league-type institutions have service requirements for graduation.

Alternatively, there's always storming the bastille.

# ? Mar 3, 2015 21:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 01:24

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

archangelwar posted:

Why? Limits can change based on circumstance and time.

Because "Sometimes, but not always, you are morally obligated to help other people. I dunno, it's hard, but if you don't help when I think you should, you are evil." is an unconvincing moral code.

Talmonis posted:

Absolutely. It's so they don't take what you have by force. When people have enough, they don't (barring mental stability issues) typically commit violent crimes. It's in your best interest to see to it that your neighbors have enough food, education and shelter.

So the only moral theft is the one I agree with, and might makes right when I think it does? I'm a little disturbed how quickly you shifted gears from saying that helping others is a moral duty to, "do it or we'll loving kill you and take your stuff" (which has the added problem of being a threat that most poor and starving people can't actually back up.)

It seems a little unfair to jump on those trying to articulate a universal set of ethics in terms of negative rights for not being logically consistent if you aren't going to offer a logically consistent alternative.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Alternatively, there's always storming the bastille.

...which is how the Reign of Terror came about.

# ? Mar 3, 2015 22:46

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Dead Reckoning posted:

...which is how the Reign of Terror came about.

Didn't say it was a good alternative! _{Though on the whole modern France is probably better off than it otherwise would have been? Maybe?}

# ? Mar 3, 2015 22:53

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Didn't say it was a good alternative! _{Though on the whole modern France is probably better off than it otherwise would have been? Maybe?}

It really took the Second World War to convince Western European nations to chill the gently caress out and stop trying to constantly murder each other over who was best at murdering Africans.

# ? Mar 3, 2015 23:07

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

TwoQuestions posted:

Changing gears, how do you go about convincing someone without compassion of a compassionate solution to a problem? If crime in a nearby city you never visit can be reduced substantially by a $10 million investment in infastructure/law enforcement training/whatever, and this investment is proven to work, how do you convince someone who just says "gently caress those city people! If they can't solve their problems without State help they deserve to die!"?

You don't because the issue in that instance is not an absence of compassion, but rather a presence of malice. An opposition to a demonstrably effective solution on the grounds of antipathy towards others is not a lack of compassion, it's someone who takes pleasure in the the suffering of others.

# ? Mar 4, 2015 00:04

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

Dead Reckoning posted:

Because "Sometimes, but not always, you are morally obligated to help other people. I dunno, it's hard, but if you don't help when I think you should, you are evil." is an unconvincing moral code.

OK, good thing that is not what I said! Must "moral codes" always be deontological?

# ? Mar 4, 2015 02:42

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

archangelwar posted:

OK, good thing that is not what I said! Must "moral codes" always be deontological?

I asked if anyone was willing to address the question of the limits of personal obligation to the good of others, and your answer was that there was no reason to address that at all because it was situational. So what exactly are you trying to say then? If you think that morality shouldn't be based on adherence to a set of rules, what is your alternative?

# ? Mar 4, 2015 08:42

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Dead Reckoning posted:

So the only moral theft is the one I agree with, and might makes right when I think it does? I'm a little disturbed how quickly you shifted gears from saying that helping others is a moral duty to, "do it or we'll loving kill you and take your stuff" (which has the added problem of being a threat that most poor and starving people can't actually back up.)

My answer was to the question of "is there a reason I should help other than "The Feels"?". By which I think he means the entire concept of morality. I didn't declare theft moral, I simply stated the reasoning behind not wanting your neighbors to be poor and destitute. History bears out that people will in fact, kill you and take your stuff if they're hungry and angry enough. Which brings about bad times (as you mentioned, the Reign of Terror). Thus, it's in your interest to not be a selfish gently caress, and make sure that the people around you have enough too.

The Golden Rule and compassion aren't difficult things to comprehend, and it's astonishing that some folks need to hash out some sort of ethical framework and ruleset to even consider them.

# ? Mar 4, 2015 15:36

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Dead Reckoning posted:

I asked if anyone was willing to address the question of the limits of personal obligation to the good of others, and your answer was that there was no reason to address that at all because it was situational. So what exactly are you trying to say then? If you think that morality shouldn't be based on adherence to a set of rules, what is your alternative?

Consequentialism, virtue ethics, nihilism. Those are your three basic options, and I hope to see you engaging with the wide and wonderful world of ethics in the future. Good day!

# ? Mar 4, 2015 15:56

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

wateroverfire posted:

However the quibble is in your objection, not the positive/negative distinction!

If rephrasing "the right to X" as "the right to not be prevented from X" doesn't change the obligation involved then you haven't semantically switched from positive to negative - the obligation is the same so you're playing word games while practically speaking the right is still positive or negative. For instance:

A right to health care --> An obligation on others to provide you health care.
A right not to be prevented from receiving health care --> An obligation on others to provide you health care (which is the same as an obligation not to refuse to provide you health care).

It's the same positive right because it's imposing an obligation on others to do something for you.

However, if rephrasing does change the obligation then you're actually talking about a different right and we're not in the realm of semantics at all. For instance:

A right not to be killed --> An obligation on others to refrain from killing you. (negative right)
A right to life --> An open ended obligation on others to keep you alive. (positive right)

The implications of those two rights are very different and not merely word play. (I'm open to the idea that there's a better way to rewrite either right not to be killed or a right to life but I couldn't think how to do it).

I think his issue is that negative and positive rights have no actual distinction because there is no actual thing as negative rights. Just from the wikipedia definition of a negative right:

quote:

A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action.

The problem with the definition is that not subjecting someone to an action is still in fact an action. There is no actual thing as inaction (maybe once the heat death of the universe comes, we'll have true inaction). If we take inaction to mean action without conscious consideration, "a right not to be killed" does not meet the requirements of a negative right because (for example), if I am working dangerous chemicals in the vicinity of you, I have an obligation to consciously take action and prevent you from interacting with or inhaling said chemicals without your knowledge or permission. Since a right can only be negative if the only action required by 3rd parties is inaction, the right not to be killed cannot be considered to be a negative right.

Similarly, libertarian property ownership rights are not actually negative rights, because not only does the right impose an obligation to not trespass, but it also imposes an obligation that the person in question be able to distinguish from the properties of multiple people and respect their rights, a burdensome obligation for someone who is blind or who has a memory loss condition.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Mar 4, 2015

# ? Mar 4, 2015 16:23

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

Dead Reckoning posted:

I asked if anyone was willing to address the question of the limits of personal obligation to the good of others, and your answer was that there was no reason to address that at all because it was situational.

That is a weird rephrase of the actual words wateroverfire was using, but there is no need to make absolute claims of obligations because obligations could change based on circumstance or new information. Additionally how does one casually define all obligational limitations in the context of a broad discussion of rights? Do you expect quantification in the form of a single integer or mathematical formula? wateroverfire was insinuating that any obligation was problematic. Disagreement with that can occur without quantification unless...

quote:

So what exactly are you trying to say then? If you think that morality shouldn't be based on adherence to a set of rules, what is your alternative?

You didn't answer the question about deontological rules. If those are the only rules we are discussing, then I must simply disagree with your definition of morality and the limit of the scope of the philosophical debate you are willing to have.

# ? Mar 4, 2015 19:58

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

man do i never get tired of internet nerds conflating and then arguing over philosophical and legal issues

# ? Mar 5, 2015 01:14

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Effectronica posted:

Consequentialism, virtue ethics, nihilism. Those are your three basic options, and I hope to see you engaging with the wide and wonderful world of ethics in the future. Good day!

I'm aware of the alternatives, I'm trying to figure out which one archangelwar is proposing.

archangelwar posted:

That is a weird rephrase of the actual words wateroverfire was using, but there is no need to make absolute claims of obligations because obligations could change based on circumstance or new information. Additionally how does one casually define all obligational limitations in the context of a broad discussion of rights? Do you expect quantification in the form of a single integer or mathematical formula? wateroverfire was insinuating that any obligation was problematic. Disagreement with that can occur without quantification unless...

You didn't answer the question about deontological rules. If those are the only rules we are discussing, then I must simply disagree with your definition of morality and the limit of the scope of the philosophical debate you are willing to have.

If you entire contribution can be summed up as "nuh uh", I'm not sure why you're bothering to post.

# ? Mar 5, 2015 05:45

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

Condiv posted:

I think his issue is that negative and positive rights have no actual distinction because there is no actual thing as negative rights. Just from the wikipedia definition of a negative right:

The problem with the definition is that not subjecting someone to an action is still in fact an action. There is no actual thing as inaction (maybe once the heat death of the universe comes, we'll have true inaction). If we take inaction to mean action without conscious consideration, "a right not to be killed" does not meet the requirements of a negative right because (for example), if I am working dangerous chemicals in the vicinity of you, I have an obligation to consciously take action and prevent you from interacting with or inhaling said chemicals without your knowledge or permission. Since a right can only be negative if the only action required by 3rd parties is inaction, the right not to be killed cannot be considered to be a negative right.

The ethical rule that arise from people having for instance a right not to be killed would be something like "Can I reasonably assume doing X is going to kill someone? In that case don't do X." or "Can I reasonably assume by doing X I can prevent someone from being killed by something else I am contemplating doing? If so then do X.". The ethical rule arising from a right ot life is going to be different - something like "Can I reasonably assume that by doing X I can preserve someone's life whether or not I am the source of danger to them in the first place? In that case do X."

Now I'm not saying it isn't praiseworthy to do what you can to preserve life whether or not you're threatening it in the first place. But as an obligation that is pretty open ended while the "Don't kill people" obligation is not. That's the practical distinction between positive and negative rights. Splitting hairs about whether with awkward phrasing we can turn an obligation to not murder someone into an obligation to act not to murder someone is the ivory tower bullshit. IMO, anyway.

archangelwar posted:

wateroverfire was insinuating that any obligation was problematic.

There's no insinuation. I am stating that open ended obligations are problematic. If your moral code commits you to obligations you can't reasonably fulfill you've got a problem.

Talmonis posted:

My answer was to the question of "is there a reason I should help other than "The Feels"?". By which I think he means the entire concept of morality. I didn't declare theft moral, I simply stated the reasoning behind not wanting your neighbors to be poor and destitute. History bears out that people will in fact, kill you and take your stuff if they're hungry and angry enough. Which brings about bad times (as you mentioned, the Reign of Terror). Thus, it's in your interest to not be a selfish gently caress, and make sure that the people around you have enough too.

I wanted to know if the OP had something in mind other than "How do I make this person share my compassion".

Talmonis posted:

The Golden Rule and compassion aren't difficult things to comprehend, and it's astonishing that some folks need to hash out some sort of ethical framework and ruleset to even consider them.

There's a lot more to the question than that, though. Where does the money come from? If I take resources from my community to help yours, what are we not doing in my community in order to help you out? Am I ok making my literal neighbors worse off to send resources to another juristiction? Why are we the ones who have to make choices between competing priorities when the benefit is going to you?

# ? Mar 5, 2015 15:45

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Open-ended obligations, so long as they are concomitant with the realization that they are impossible to actually fulfill but every little bit helps, are superior to closed obligations, which invite inhumane behavior once they are fulfilled.

# ? Mar 5, 2015 15:47

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

wateroverfire posted:

The ethical rule that arise from people having for instance a right not to be killed would be something like "Can I reasonably assume doing X is going to kill someone? In that case don't do X." or "Can I reasonably assume by doing X I can prevent someone from being killed by something else I am contemplating doing? If so then do X.". The ethical rule arising from a right ot life is going to be different - something like "Can I reasonably assume that by doing X I can preserve someone's life whether or not I am the source of danger to them in the first place? In that case do X."

Now I'm not saying it isn't praiseworthy to do what you can to preserve life whether or not you're threatening it in the first place. But as an obligation that is pretty open ended while the "Don't kill people" obligation is not. That's the practical distinction between positive and negative rights. Splitting hairs about whether with awkward phrasing we can turn an obligation to not murder someone into an obligation to act not to murder someone is the ivory tower bullshit. IMO, anyway.

Actually your claim that the "negative" right to life is "don't kill people" is wrong. since you're contrasting it with a far more expansive definition of what a right to life constitutes on the "positive" side. A more honest formulation of the "negative" right to life would be "don't hinder any action that I take in order to preserve my life", which is pretty much just as open-ended as you claim the "positive" right to life to be. Either that or you need to apply the narrow definition on the "positive" claim as well, such as "I have a duty to only take actions that would result in X living".

This also shows that the negative/positive divide still is a matter of semantics once you actually talk about the same thing.

# ? Mar 5, 2015 16:03

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

wateroverfire posted:

There's no insinuation. I am stating that open ended obligations are problematic. If your moral code commits you to obligations you can't reasonably fulfill you've got a problem.

Effectronica posted:

Open-ended obligations, so long as they are concomitant with the realization that they are impossible to actually fulfill but every little bit helps, are superior to closed obligations, which invite inhumane behavior once they are fulfilled.

Yes! This is why orthodox Christianity and Marxism are both extroardinarily radical philosophies! If being a good person were easy, everyone would do it!

That said, a number of philosophers have tried to address this issue somewhat more formally. For example, one recommended reading would be John Rawl's Theory of Justice.

# ? Mar 5, 2015 16:21

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Effectronica posted:

Open-ended obligations, so long as they are concomitant with the realization that they are impossible to actually fulfill but every little bit helps, are superior to closed obligations, which invite inhumane behavior once they are fulfilled.

I would agree with this. It is far more helpful, I find, to have an ideal which you are supposed to try and aim for at all times, and remain aware that you will always fail, than to set a lower target and think 'good enough' once you get to it. You get less personal sense of satisfaction but better results.

# ? Mar 5, 2015 16:53

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

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?

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.

# ? Mar 7, 2015 22:55

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:

So the only moral theft is the one I agree with, and might makes right when I think it does? I'm a little disturbed how quickly you shifted gears from saying that helping others is a moral duty to, "do it or we'll loving kill you and take your stuff" (which has the added problem of being a threat that most poor and starving people can't actually back up.)

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

quote:

...which is how the Reign of Terror came about.

The great Count did indeed make a great effort to persuade the peasants of the irrationality of their behavior, and made quite a solid argument, before he was quite rudely interrupted by a bayonet!

America Inc. fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Mar 7, 2015

# ? Mar 7, 2015 23:34

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

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?

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.

You ask a lot of weird questions. Are you thinking of killing someone?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 00:04

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

You ask a lot of weird questions. Are you thinking of killing someone?

No, it's just people seem to think we don't live in a dog-eat-dog jungle when in fact we do. If the government/social contract decides you don't deserve to live, then you will die. How many genocides are going on right this instant and nobody gives a poo poo?

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

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

The great Count did indeed make a great effort to persuade the peasants of the irrationality of their behavior, and made quite a solid argument, before he was quite rudely interrupted by a bayonet!

Yes, but I'm proud to the point where the only reason I'd ask for help is because not doing so would hurt other people.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 00:14

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

TwoQuestions posted:

No, it's just people seem to think we don't live in a dog-eat-dog jungle when in fact we do. If the government/social contract decides you don't deserve to live, then you will die. How many genocides are going on right this instant and nobody gives a poo poo?

Does it help to view things like that?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 00:17

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.

TwoQuestions posted:

No, it's just people seem to think we don't live in a dog-eat-dog jungle when in fact we do. If the government/social contract decides you don't deserve to live, then you will die. How many genocides are going on right this instant and nobody gives a poo poo?

Society functions because we don't let everyone just be thrown to the wolves. If you want to make an argument that it would be better if the weak were cleansed through violence, by all means do so.
Actually, we don't live in a dog-eat-dog world because people don't eat their kids, or regularly steal from their neighbors.

quote:

Yes, but I'm proud to the point where the only reason I'd ask for help is because not doing so would hurt other people.

You know for some reason I don't believe this at all.

America Inc. fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Mar 8, 2015

# ? Mar 8, 2015 00:22

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

Society functions because we don't let everyone just be thrown to the wolves. If you want to make an argument that it would be better if the weak were cleansed through violence, by all means do so.
Actually, we don't live in a dog-eat-dog world because people don't eat their kids, or regularly steal from their neighbors.

I'm not saying those genocides are good by any stretch, I'm saying that's how the world works. Also, I take it you haven't grown up in a small poor town. People don't eat their kids, they make them work in legal and illegal ways and boy do people rob their neighbors left and right, but generally as revenge for some real or imagined slight. If you leave your door open, don't count on any of your stuff being there when you get back.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 00:34

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Still not really seeing your point.

Does it greatly matter whether what you're saying is true?

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Mar 8, 2015

# ? Mar 8, 2015 00:40

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.

TwoQuestions posted:

I'm not saying those genocides are good by any stretch, I'm saying that's how the world works. Also, I take it you haven't grown up in a small poor town. People don't eat their kids, they make them work in legal and illegal ways and boy do people rob their neighbors left and right, but generally as revenge for some real or imagined slight. If you leave your door open, don't count on any of your stuff being there when you get back.

If these people weren't forced into such a desperate situation by society, would they act like that?
People aren't angels, but if you force people into a corner there isn't a hell of a lot open for them.
It's like the Nazis forcing the Jews into an extremely desperate situation in the camps and then trying to justify the supposed animal-like and wretched nature of the Jews by showing them starved and filthy.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 00:46

Mayor Dave: Feb 20, 2009; Bernie the Snow Clown

Unironically asking the question "Do people have an inherent right to live?" automatically strips that right away from the asker

# ? Mar 8, 2015 00:49

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

Mayor Dave posted:

Unironically asking the question "Do people have an inherent right to live?" automatically strips that right away from the asker

I argue nobody ever had it in the first place. The reason you (hopefully) weren't murdered today is only because either everyone you met had compassion and didn't feel like killing you, or were afraid of society punishing them. I'd like to do away with illusions to the contrary. Might alone makes right.

I'd rather we stop assuming that everyone values human life, and make arguments and plans without that assumption in place. If you personally value life, argue and act like nobody else does.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:32

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

that's how i argue normally

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:37

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

TwoQuestions posted:

I argue nobody ever had it in the first place. The reason you (hopefully) weren't murdered today is only because either everyone you met had compassion and didn't feel like killing you, or were afraid of society punishing them. I'd like to do away with illusions to the contrary. Might alone makes right.

I'd rather we stop assuming that everyone values human life, and make arguments and plans without that assumption in place. If you personally value life, argue and act like nobody else does.

I continue to not see the difference that it makes. What others believe does not change how I should behave towards them.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:44

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.

TwoQuestions posted:

I argue nobody ever had it in the first place. The reason you (hopefully) weren't murdered today is only because either everyone you met had compassion and didn't feel like killing you, or were afraid of society punishing them. I'd like to do away with illusions to the contrary. Might alone makes right.

I'd rather we stop assuming that everyone values human life, and make arguments and plans without that assumption in place. If you personally value life, argue and act like nobody else does.

Do you have a lot of friends

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:56

AHungryRobot: Oct 12, 2012

TwoQuestions posted:

No, it's just people seem to think we don't live in a dog-eat-dog jungle when in fact we do. If the government/social contract decides you don't deserve to live, then you will die. How many genocides are going on right this instant and nobody gives a poo poo?

This is sounding like some naturalistic bullshit. Even if it were true that the current state of the world is some bleak, constant struggle for survival, that doesn't mean that's how the world should actually be like.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:57

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

AHungryRobot posted:

This is sounding like some naturalistic bullshit. Even if it were true that the current state of the world is some bleak, constant struggle for survival, that doesn't mean that's how the world should actually be like.

Except the world is a bleak, constant struggle for survival, at least for most people. How does ignoring that make anything any better?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:02

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.

AHungryRobot posted:

This is sounding like some naturalistic bullshit.

It's not even naturalistic, because purely selfish behavior in nature makes you extinct really fast, especially for a bunch of soft meatbags with no natural means of defense except our brains that take forever to mature.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:04

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

TwoQuestions posted:

Except the world is a bleak, constant struggle for survival, at least for most people. How does ignoring that make anything any better?

Because we decided that the world sucked and formed this thing we call Society. The answer isn't to look at the bleak nature of a natural world, the answer is to look at our societies and decide how they can be improved. You are digging down. Dig up.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:06

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

TwoQuestions posted:

Except the world is a bleak, constant struggle for survival, at least for most people. How does ignoring that make anything any better?

Because how the world is has no bearing on your behaviour, you behave as you wish the world to be, not as it is. That the world leaves much to be desired does not give you leave to be likewise.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:17

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

wateroverfire posted:

The ethical rule that arise from people having for instance a right not to be killed would be something like "Can I reasonably assume doing X is going to kill someone? In that case don't do X." or "Can I reasonably assume by doing X I can prevent someone from being killed by something else I am contemplating doing? If so then do X.". The ethical rule arising from a right ot life is going to be different - something like "Can I reasonably assume that by doing X I can preserve someone's life whether or not I am the source of danger to them in the first place? In that case do X."

Now I'm not saying it isn't praiseworthy to do what you can to preserve life whether or not you're threatening it in the first place. But as an obligation that is pretty open ended while the "Don't kill people" obligation is not. That's the practical distinction between positive and negative rights. Splitting hairs about whether with awkward phrasing we can turn an obligation to not murder someone into an obligation to act not to murder someone is the ivory tower bullshit. IMO, anyway.

i would love to hear how you're distinguishing open-ended and not open ended, cause "Can I reasonably assume doing X is going to kill someone? In that case don't do X." or "Can I reasonably assume by doing X I can prevent someone from being killed by something else I am contemplating doing? If so then do X" are both open-ended obligations. plus, a negative right is not supposed to oblige any action, much less conscious action. again, i really doubt there's really any line between "negative" and "positive" rights at all

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:47

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

Because how the world is has no bearing on your behaviour, you behave as you wish the world to be, not as it is. That the world leaves much to be desired does not give you leave to be likewise.

I try to be a decent human being because I'd feel like poo poo if I was a complete callous rear end in a top hat. Trouble is, most of my morals are internal, believed almost like articles of faith.

I guess I just gotta learn how to argue with sociopathic assholes who don't see that hurting other people indirectly hurts themselves. Y'all would be surprised how many people think like the Goddamned Freepers.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 01:24

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

TwoQuestions posted:

I try to be a decent human being because I'd feel like poo poo if I was a complete callous rear end in a top hat. Trouble is, most of my morals are internal, believed almost like articles of faith.

I guess I just gotta learn how to argue with sociopathic assholes who don't see that hurting other people indirectly hurts themselves. Y'all would be surprised how many people think like the Goddamned Freepers.

im not sure how considering its a dog eat dog bleak world out there

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:55

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

«‹›6 »