|
UF Philosophy Corner - Ethics | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 08:21:28 |
|
In order: | by werehatrack | 2008-10-21 08:35:19 |
|
I like all but the first. | by tallastro | 2008-10-21 08:48:31 |
|
Could there ever be a right | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 08:53:44 |
|
Yes, I think so. | by tallastro | 2008-10-21 09:02:17 |
|
I'm not clear on one thing. | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 09:07:59 |
|
I believe werehatrack's claim is that | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 09:34:39 |
|
Disagree. | by werehatrack | 2008-10-21 09:55:55 |
|
Sure it is | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 10:11:18 |
|
Is that a right though, or merely a universal | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:13:34 |
|
What is the difference between | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 10:27:05 |
|
No, because "violation" is subjective. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:52:18 |
|
Sometimes, though, you don't | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 10:56:20 |
|
I wanted to get away from the human examples | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:59:44 |
|
O-kay, but it still begs the question | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 11:20:43 |
|
There isn't an appeal | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:25:20 |
|
Then what is your right to life? | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 11:41:40 |
|
I don't have a right to life. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:47:02 |
| That would mean, then |
by bitflipper |
2008-10-21 11:56:40 |
that your privilege to live applies only to you. I thoroughly disagree, for I, too, may live, as may my wife, my daughter, my neighbors, my friends. And we will defend our lives with whatever means are necessary.
Life is not something for one, alone (which is what "privilege" unltimately means--a law that only applies to a single person); it is for every living thing. The society that does not recognize this for all of its members must fail, for it will fail to guarantee protection of any other right if it cannot guarantee protection of the right of its members to live.
This does not require it guarantee that everyone will live, only that their right to live--the fundamental struggle every living thing knows--will be protected.
If I may make the observation, subby, you seem to be confusing the outcome with the effort. A right to live does not guarantee life itself; it simply guarantees one may strive for life unhindered by anything other than brutal existence. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I will defend myself too, up to and including | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 12:34:25 |
|
But you would do so in the absence of society, too | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 12:58:17 |
|
No. That merely makes it an instinct. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:21:26 |
|
US citizens *do* have a right to life | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 13:34:17 |
|
If you can take it away, it's not a right | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:39:51 |
|
And that's where I disagree | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 13:41:47 |
|
I thought you prefaced the need for a soul | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:44:49 |
|
Maybe. | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 13:49:15 |
|
fair dinkum. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:51:06 |
|
It is not that your brother has a greater right | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 13:50:01 |
|
Um, the laws are *not* written to apply evenly. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:53:42 |
|
Actually, they *do* have the right to marry, | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 14:07:54 |
|
Because the state is involved there. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 14:39:47 |
