Is the right to LIFE an inherent right?

We still have not one poster who can provide any evidence for a priori rights or objective morality.

 

In response to the OP, I do not believe in the existence of natural rights or objective moral truths. I believe there ought to be a socially constructed right to sentient life placed at a great value relative to other rights, with the extent to which a creature's life is valued being subjectively judged based on to what extent that creature exhibits attributes of personhood relative to other lifeforms. Folks should deliberate amongst themselves to decide how much to care about life, in which forms, and under which circumstances.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I'm not sure from what you've said - what your answer to this question would be.

"If you agree that you have an inherent right to 'self defense' - what is it (if it's not your LIFE) that you have an inherent right to defend?"

 

It's no more "arbitrary" than the point at which a generator produces output because someone closed the switch.

Doesn't matter.

BTW, if in your reply you fail to use the "reply with quote" function, I will consider the conversation terminated.

You don't need any formulas, just sense enough to not to pay any mind to the voice in your head that prompts you to doubt a self-evident truth.

Doesn't matter, since nobody has any reason to care about that, and since such "morality" is as malleable as you are willing to make it.

By your own reasoning, any objections you have have are utterly meaningless.

The challenge is not as intelligent as that of a fish which demands evidence for the existence of water. Objective morality is not a phenomenon one discovers like wave-particle duality, it must be rediscovered by those who have allowed themselves to be gulled into doubting its reality.

What the hell difference does it make whether they do or not, since by your reasoning there's no way to get it wrong?

 

There would be no way to get it wrong objectively from my point of view, aye, but lots of ways to get it wrong subjectively. My position is a small number of basic moral tendencies are found in neurotypical members of our species as traits that tangibly evolved many, many generations ago - perhaps even before humanity existed in the first place. Depending on which dispositions are strongest for the people most effectively wielding decisive amounts of capital to advance their political interests, and on how those people (imperfectly) use their minds (of limited ability) to apply their (biased) moral values to their own respective (and imperfect) understandings of reality, communities can develop all sorts of beliefs about what is right or wrong, or on how much to strengthen or weaken emphasis on a broad range of values as they pertain to settling matters of interpersonal conflicts of interest.

 

And just what the hell difference does that make unless there's a way to get it right subjectively?

Obviously you have no idea what a human being is, so do feel free to consider the question rhetorical.

 

So there is an exact point where you can say -this is not homosapiens and the child of this not homosapiens is homosapiens. Which point is that then that is as clear as flipping a switch

So you can give no evidence whatsoever in the existence of objective morality. You just insult the question asker, then inists that it is self evident when it is clearly NOT self evident. Anything natural can be discrovered just like wave particle duality.

Your problem is that you are completely unable to prove any of your assertions.

Oh and you can terminate an argument any time you like. Since you are unable to demonstrate any of your obviously religious based demands you are pretty worthless as a debater.

 

Wow, hard to believe that there are so many people who do not believe in rights. Except, of course, those that the government is so generous as to bestow upon us. For if you don't believe that there is an inherent right to live, then there are NO inherent rights, as all other rights are dependent upon that most fundamental right, life. So for all you libs who are saying "no" just so you can defend your abortion stance, be aware that you are simultaneously stating that a woman has no right to her body. You are also saying different races have no right to be treated equally, gays have no right to marry, etc. NO rights are inherent.

 

The creation of the first human by God, obviously.

It would be pointless to do so, seeing every human being worthy of the name can access the evidence with no effort whatsoever.

Sometimes it is impossible to be truthful without being insolent, and this is such a time - apologies for any inconvenience.

Who said it was "natural"?

That's your problem, not mine.

 

Ah, yet another DemocRAT and socialist with his Might Makes My Messiah Right policy.

You must be happy, being so devout.

 

This is a TOUGH one. I'll take a stab.

No man has a RIGHT to life in a literal sense as in being a conscious actor. However, because we do not possess the RIGHT we by nature cannot possess the RIGHT to take life away as you cannot take something that which you do not possess yourself.

 

That is,, because objective reality, if it exists is the reality created by an infinite amount of subjective observers. However, since the introduction of intelligence on the scene we are witnessing a challenge to the laws of the universe. We literally have the capacity to reshape existence with this miraculous development that is intelligence.

 

Thanks for your vote and input... but I have to disagree with part of your premise.

Most of us don't own or possess the hope diamond... but man - given the chance to take it?

I know (I think I know) what you were trying to say.

I'd like to see you explain it another way.

 

Without logical formulas I cannot prove that anything I say has any mettle in it.

 

Can I really ignore you - if you don't exist?

Good luck in your efforts.

 

Let me clarify. It's obvious I exist but the real question is: "Are my actions consciously my own, or are they simply a chemical reaction to my environment?" The answer is obvious for Predestinationists; everything being ordained by God.

To answer your question you have to provide an answer for the existence of free will.

 

|

Well done. Correct. there are no inherrant rights. None whatsoever. No rights to body, to be gay, be treated equally or anything else. These are created rights.

 

Do you mind explaining how objective morality is relevant.
You may already have but I don't feel like sifting through the posts to find it.

 

Except that lots of people still believe in absolute/objective morality, and even those that don't still function on some sort of morality.

Not really. Moral objections don't have to be based on absolutes in order to have meaning. Still waiting for you to explain how objective morality can exist. Since you cut that part out of my quote, I guess that means you can't even begin to actually make an argument for objective morality. So stop wasting my time with your BS replies that amount to nothing more than, "boo hoo, the world would suck if morality wasn't objective."

 

I cant believe there are 10 people who think they dont have the right to live.

Why not just kill yourselves?

 

Apart from the fact I am certainly no socialist and have no Idea what you mean by 'my messiah

 

No we are saying we have no inherrant right to live.

 

Obviously I wouldn't know; but it's certainly possible, if you have lost your humanity, temporarily or otherwise, that you are so entangled in your material environment that you believe you and your thoughts are one and the same, which would mean you don't know who you are.

You're gonna have to do a lot better than rancid atheistard cliches if you're gonna hold my interest.

BTW, while I'd be more tolerant with others, in your case I'm gonna go ahead and equate screwing up the quote tags with failure to use "reply with quote" from here on out.

So your belief in subjective morality has value because of the belief of others in objective morality. Have I got that about right?

Yeah really.

Of course they do - although I readily concede that pretenses to the contrary, while plainly idiotic, are nevertheless not prohibited by law.

I shall be happy to, the minute you explain how the universe can exist.

Perhaps the better question, since nobody else has any more right to life than they do, is why they don't kill everyone they figure needs killin' - the answer presumably being that it would not be socially acceptable.

 

I don;t care If I hold your interest or not. Your pathetic beleifs are a tried cliche. P1ss off if you feel like it.