|
TwoQuestions posted:And if so, why? What policies and costs are justified to keep people alive (housed, fed, free from pollution)? There are no inherent rights, but most elements of modern survival are a result of social behavior. You were "kept alive" by your parents, who may very well have been financially or personally better off had they drowned you in a river. For some reason, be it personal happiness or perhaps the feeling of a social obligation, you were raised by someone, kept alive by someone long enough to eventually fend for yourself. You might claim here that people who are old enough to be adults but can't fend for themselves ought to be left behind by society, to die or forage or fight for survival. That is not only barbaric and cruel, but creates instability in society through crime. The impetus of survival in almost every human being will force those left behind to act. At that point, not only does a society weaken itself by having to devote resources to stopping them, but they've also made enemies out people who could have been friends. Made potentially useful people antagonistic. Right there you have a societal incentive to maintain the life of a stranger who can't maintain their own. Social stability created by the personal stability of society's members. For a more personal take, you might consider how you'd like society to react if you were put in a situation where you could no longer support yourself, either through accidental loss of ability (maybe a freak accident makes you a paraplegic), or perhaps the malice of others (perhaps the capital class steadily lowers or stagnates your wages out of greed such that your "productive value" eventually can't pay your rent or buy your food). Self-interest and that desire to survive dictates that a sane person would want society to keep them alive when they can't do so themselves, and since all human beings are vulnerable to disease, accident, and villainy, the only sure way to prevent yourself from being left behind is to make sure no one gets left behind. Not sure how old you are OP, but you might look into some entry level political philosophy to get a hold on this.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:This question probably requires better phrasing, perhaps something like "Why should people care if other people get hurt?" Because you want other people to care when you get hurt. It's pretty much entirely about empathy, reciprocation, and enlightened self-interest. TwoQuestions posted:Imagine for a second that somebody just bought a self-driving car, and they're cruising on the highway keeping an eye on the road but generally letting the autodriver do its thing. Suddenly, a construction worker trips over a rock and stumbles in the car's way, getting hit. If the driver is capable of avoiding the collision without creating further danger in the process, he ought to do so. If you stumbled into the road, would you feel that the driver's callous indifference is appropriate? TwoQuestions posted:Also, since any right to life is a social construction, what if society decides you're some sort of nonperson, as in the case of genocide victims or certain types of criminals? What are they ethically permitted to do about their situation? Well, they certainly can protect themselves as non-violently as possible. Beyond that they should try to appeal to the empathy of others, but that's more of a strategy to change social mores. There's an implication here that if rights are social constructs, then they're subject to the whims of society. To some extent, they are, but society itself is just a series of messy constructs of human interaction. As such, there is no obligation for any one individual to necessarily agree with any particular stance taken by a social organization they belong to. Just like you might disagree with your racist grandparents because your teachers or friends taught you better, a genocidal government can, absolutely, be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
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
|
|