Do people have an inherent right to live?

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

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

eSports Chaebol posted:

Of course, requiring perfect logical and pragmatic consistency is a silly standard, but of course of course if that isn't your standard and some kind of humanism is, why not go with positive rights?

Well, if you're going to advocate positive rights you should at least address wateroverfire's question about the limits of personal duty to others.

eSports Chaebol posted:

There are plenty of real life example of negative rights actively harming people: drawing up title for lands previously occupied based on tradition instead of legal title. This usually [read: always] results in people being harmed in order to establish a robust regime of negative property rights. See also: enclosure. If you want to be really consistent here, you either have to advocate some kind of jubilee, or else be a Proudhon-style libertarian.

Unless you're in favor of abolishing all property rights, you're always going to have the problem of when to start counting ownership.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 09:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 20:57

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 20:57

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

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