|
Although the phrasing of the OP is pretty repugnant, I have often found this question interesting as it pertains directly to a number of debates—welfare, healthcare, abortion, assisted suicide, war, the death penalty, the 2nd amendment, police brutality, etc. A lot of people feel like they hold a "human life is more valuable than anything else" mentality, but that almost always immediately breaks down once nuanced situations and edge cases start to be introduced. Pretty much nobody thinks that both abortion and war should be outlawed, for instance. But both ostensibly deal with the basic immorality of killing, right? But it feels really awkward to start trying to "justify" when life is and is not valuable, and so you get responses like those above instead. Personally, I think every human has a duty to make things as good as possible for other people, so "not killing them" almost always falls easily under that subheading. (That duty, in short, stems from the fact that this is the only way for a society to truly advance: an objectivist society, with the opposite viewpoint, would almost immediately revert to the stone age, as people hosed each other over for short term gains). The only circumstances in which a human life is forfeit is 1. if they are threatening the life or livelihood of another, then lethal force can be excused, or 2. if they are terminally ill and would rather die painlessly now than after slow months or years of agony. But I wouldn't extend this right to fetuses. Feti are fungible.
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
What about dolphins? What about condors?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
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. Additionally, there is an "all boats rise together" element in play. A better-fed, better-educated, better-empowered proletariat would hypothetically be able to increase the speed of social and scientific progress, as the smart-but-downtrodden are able to actually use their skills. All the money and power in the world won't help you if your subjects are uneducated illiterate waifs barely capable of properly plowing a field, much less developing the next great technology. Contrary to the objectivist's belief, the needs of the many generally also fulfill the needs of the few.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. 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
|
|