The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
UF Philosophy Corner - Ethics by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 08:21:28
  In order: by werehatrack2008-10-21 08:35:19
    I like all but the first. by tallastro2008-10-21 08:48:31
      Could there ever be a right by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 08:53:44
        Yes, I think so. by tallastro2008-10-21 09:02:17
          I'm not clear on one thing. by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 09:07:59
            I believe werehatrack's claim is that by bitflipper2008-10-21 09:34:39
              Disagree. by werehatrack2008-10-21 09:55:55
                Sure it is by bitflipper 2008-10-21 10:11:18
The rabbit still struggles in the fox's jaws; if it can escape, it will. It doesn't simply give itself up placidly to the carnivore's apetite, now, does it? That struggle is inborn into all of us.

Similarly, the fox is protecting its own right to live, by trying to eat the rabbit. The fox is hungry. If it does not eat for long enough, it sickens and dies.

The conflict of these two rights to struggle for life is what causes brutal existence to be brutal. It is when we agree to share some restrictions upon our unfettered apetites and freedoms that we rise from brutal nature in which everyone is a threat and a target to a social nature in which ones fellows are also ones helpmates.

Do bacteria hold consensus opinions? As you say: ludicrous! Do bacteria struggle to survive, though? Most emphatically yes, or else there would be no bacteria. That struggle is inborn into every living thing.
[ Reply ]
                  Is that a right though, or merely a universal by subbywan2008-10-21 10:13:34
                    What is the difference between by bitflipper2008-10-21 10:27:05
                      Perhaps a right is by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 10:36:49
                        I'm amenable to that by bitflipper2008-10-21 10:50:41
                      No, because "violation" is subjective. by subbywan2008-10-21 10:52:18
                        Sometimes, though, you don't by bitflipper2008-10-21 10:56:20
                          I wanted to get away from the human examples by subbywan2008-10-21 10:59:44
                            O-kay, but it still begs the question by bitflipper2008-10-21 11:20:43
                              There isn't an appeal by subbywan2008-10-21 11:25:20
                                Which is precisely why by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:33:46
                                Which is exactly why I wouldn't :) by subbywan2008-10-21 11:38:55
                                Of course it can by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:47:55
                                Because if it can be taken away, it's conditional by subbywan2008-10-21 11:52:24
                                But a right does not guarantee outcome by bitflipper2008-10-21 12:08:10
                                Then it's not a right. by subbywan2008-10-21 12:32:51
                                Precisely. by bitflipper2008-10-21 12:51:28
                                It does only apply to a few. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:14:48
                                History has demonstrated by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 13:31:32
                                Exactly. What history has demonstrated by bitflipper2008-10-21 13:36:04
                                Rights can't be taken away. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:45:49
                                Then we come back to by bitflipper2008-10-21 13:52:16
                                Which I argue is wishful thinking. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:59:29
                                Then rights exist by dint of those same by bitflipper2008-10-21 14:16:03
                                Nope. i made no such claim by subbywan2008-10-21 14:30:24
                                I think we're dealing with by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 12:52:15
                                Human and societal behaviour and norms. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:16:58
                                Then what is your right to life? by bitflipper2008-10-21 11:41:40
                                I don't have a right to life. by subbywan2008-10-21 11:47:02
                                That would mean, then by bitflipper2008-10-21 11:56:40
                                I will defend myself too, up to and including by subbywan2008-10-21 12:34:25
                                But you would do so in the absence of society, too by bitflipper2008-10-21 12:58:17
                                No. That merely makes it an instinct. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:21:26
                                US citizens *do* have a right to life by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 13:34:17
                                If you can take it away, it's not a right by subbywan2008-10-21 13:39:51
                                And that's where I disagree by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 13:41:47
                                I thought you prefaced the need for a soul by subbywan2008-10-21 13:44:49
                                Maybe. by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 13:49:15
                                fair dinkum. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:51:06
                                It is not that your brother has a greater right by bitflipper2008-10-21 13:50:01
                                Um, the laws are *not* written to apply evenly. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:53:42
                                Actually, they *do* have the right to marry, by bitflipper2008-10-21 14:07:54
                                Because the state is involved there. by subbywan2008-10-21 14:39:47
                        Why should a right imply by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 10:58:57
                          Because without it, it means nothing. by subbywan2008-10-21 11:00:28
                            In what sense? by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:01:02
                              What is a "right" without something to back it up? by subbywan2008-10-21 11:03:57
                                "Useful" for what? by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:08:06
                                You haven't demonstrated that it is though by subbywan2008-10-21 11:10:11
                                As I posted elsewhere: by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:13:25
                                Isn't that rather the point of philosophy? by subbywan2008-10-21 11:15:16
                                In a way. by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:23:01
                                That is true. by subbywan2008-10-21 11:27:17
                                Which again gets back to by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:35:51
                                Present what you have. by subbywan2008-10-21 11:40:29
                                What I have is primarily definitional by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:47:08
                                What about those without senses then? by subbywan2008-10-21 11:53:47
                                Are you saying that by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 12:02:56
                                I'm questioning your statement of by subbywan2008-10-21 12:39:53
                                I don't see where I mentioned senses by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 12:47:10
                                No, I can't. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:24:11

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)