Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Right to Life

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 12:59:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 12:42:42 AM, Unitomic wrote:
Why do we have a right to life? Do we deserve the right of life?

Explain your frustration to life....
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 1:44:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 12:59:04 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/21/2014 12:42:42 AM, Unitomic wrote:
Why do we have a right to life? Do we deserve the right of life?

Explain your frustration to life....

I have no frustration with life, I had a conversation with someone, and wanted others thoughts on the matter. Like most topics on forums.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 9:25:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In my opinion nothing has a 'right' to life. One cannot jump into the deepest part of the ocean and not expect to drown if he can't swim because he has a 'right' to exist. At the most basic level, everything living has to struggle to stay alive, to obtain the basic necessities like food and water while avoiding conditions and other entities that would take life away. Life exists because it adapts, it adjusts and finds a way to continue when circumstances make it difficult.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 2:22:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 1:05:37 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that every human has the right to live unless they are a torturer, murderer, or rapist.
Well Romans didn't have that same view. What makes your right? In the future it may be popular opinion that no one deserves to die, not even murders. What makes your views superior to theirs?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 2:24:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
We have a right to life because we as a society contractually recognise that acknowledging one another's right to life is a good foundation for constructing civil society.

I'm the state of nature, there would be no right to life.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 2:33:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 2:22:22 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 1:05:37 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that every human has the right to live unless they are a torturer, murderer, or rapist.
Well Romans didn't have that same view. What makes your right? In the future it may be popular opinion that no one deserves to die, not even murders. What makes your views superior to theirs?

People have the right to live. No one has the right to kill another person unless it is self defense.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 2:55:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 2:33:31 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:22:22 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 1:05:37 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that every human has the right to live unless they are a torturer, murderer, or rapist.
Well Romans didn't have that same view. What makes your right? In the future it may be popular opinion that no one deserves to die, not even murders. What makes your views superior to theirs?

People have the right to live. No one has the right to kill another person unless it is self defense.
You simply restated your belief, you didn't answer my question as to why your belief is superiors to the Romans or to those who may live 50 years from now.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 3:30:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 2:55:12 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:33:31 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:22:22 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 1:05:37 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that every human has the right to live unless they are a torturer, murderer, or rapist.
Well Romans didn't have that same view. What makes your right? In the future it may be popular opinion that no one deserves to die, not even murders. What makes your views superior to theirs?

People have the right to live. No one has the right to kill another person unless it is self defense.
You simply restated your belief, you didn't answer my question as to why your belief is superiors to the Romans or to those who may live 50 years from now.

Are you saying that people does not have the right to live?
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 8:09:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 3:30:58 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:55:12 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:33:31 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:22:22 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 1:05:37 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that every human has the right to live unless they are a torturer, murderer, or rapist.
Well Romans didn't have that same view. What makes your right? In the future it may be popular opinion that no one deserves to die, not even murders. What makes your views superior to theirs?

People have the right to live. No one has the right to kill another person unless it is self defense.
You simply restated your belief, you didn't answer my question as to why your belief is superiors to the Romans or to those who may live 50 years from now.

Are you saying that people does not have the right to live?

I'm not saying they dont. I'm asking you to explain why they do. Devil's Advocate if you will. And don't shame away any need to prove your point
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 8:28:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 8:09:59 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 3:30:58 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:55:12 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:33:31 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:22:22 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 1:05:37 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that every human has the right to live unless they are a torturer, murderer, or rapist.
Well Romans didn't have that same view. What makes your right? In the future it may be popular opinion that no one deserves to die, not even murders. What makes your views superior to theirs?

People have the right to live. No one has the right to kill another person unless it is self defense.
You simply restated your belief, you didn't answer my question as to why your belief is superiors to the Romans or to those who may live 50 years from now.

Are you saying that people does not have the right to live?

I'm not saying they dont. I'm asking you to explain why they do. Devil's Advocate if you will. And don't shame away any need to prove your point

People have the right to live because God gave them that right.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 8:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 8:28:40 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:09:59 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 3:30:58 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:55:12 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:33:31 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:22:22 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 1:05:37 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that every human has the right to live unless they are a torturer, murderer, or rapist.
Well Romans didn't have that same view. What makes your right? In the future it may be popular opinion that no one deserves to die, not even murders. What makes your views superior to theirs?

People have the right to live. No one has the right to kill another person unless it is self defense.
You simply restated your belief, you didn't answer my question as to why your belief is superiors to the Romans or to those who may live 50 years from now.

Are you saying that people does not have the right to live?

I'm not saying they dont. I'm asking you to explain why they do. Devil's Advocate if you will. And don't shame away any need to prove your point

People have the right to live because God gave them that right.

Not all people believe in God. And not all people believe God gives the right to life. And again, you refuse to explain what is protected by Freedom of Speech and what isn't, and why it's exactly like that
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 6:02:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?

You're creating a straw man, I am against death penalty and whatever they did in the Roman Colesseum, but that's a debate for another day. More to the point, the Romans did not have a concept of a universal right to life, hence the widespread slavery and warmongering imperialism. I can argue against the death penalty, as I have in a recent debate on here, to establish that my opposition of it is superior to the advocacy of it. Also I refer to ethical theories simply because they largely transcend the relativism of individual cultures and provide a wider scope for morality.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 1:24:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 8:59:49 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:28:40 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:09:59 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 3:30:58 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:55:12 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:33:31 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:22:22 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 1:05:37 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that every human has the right to live unless they are a torturer, murderer, or rapist.
Well Romans didn't have that same view. What makes your right? In the future it may be popular opinion that no one deserves to die, not even murders. What makes your views superior to theirs?

People have the right to live. No one has the right to kill another person unless it is self defense.
You simply restated your belief, you didn't answer my question as to why your belief is superiors to the Romans or to those who may live 50 years from now.

Are you saying that people does not have the right to live?

I'm not saying they dont. I'm asking you to explain why they do. Devil's Advocate if you will. And don't shame away any need to prove your point

People have the right to live because God gave them that right.

Not all people believe in God. And not all people believe God gives the right to life. And again, you refuse to explain what is protected by Freedom of Speech and what isn't, and why it's exactly like that

It is a fact that people have the right to live. You need to stop trolling.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:54:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 6:02:16 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?

You're creating a straw man, I am against death penalty and whatever they did in the Roman Colesseum, but that's a debate for another day. More to the point, the Romans did not have a concept of a universal right to life, hence the widespread slavery and warmongering imperialism. I can argue against the death penalty, as I have in a recent debate on here, to establish that my opposition of it is superior to the advocacy of it. Also I refer to ethical theories simply because they largely transcend the relativism of individual cultures and provide a wider scope for morality.

How have I strawed manned you? Do you even know what a Straw man is? I didn't. I argued that your views on what constitute the right to life were not and are not universally accepted, and I want to know why YOURS are right. Why are those who believe in the death penalty wrong? Why were the Roman's wrong? Don't just say "because everyone deserves it". You've already said that. I want to know why now. What is protected under right of life? Why do humans have a right to life.

At 11/24/2014 1:24:02 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:59:49 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:28:40 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:09:59 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 3:30:58 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:55:12 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:33:31 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:22:22 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 1:05:37 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that every human has the right to live unless they are a torturer, murderer, or rapist.
Well Romans didn't have that same view. What makes your right? In the future it may be popular opinion that no one deserves to die, not even murders. What makes your views superior to theirs?

People have the right to live. No one has the right to kill another person unless it is self defense.
You simply restated your belief, you didn't answer my question as to why your belief is superiors to the Romans or to those who may live 50 years from now.

Are you saying that people does not have the right to live?

I'm not saying they dont. I'm asking you to explain why they do. Devil's Advocate if you will. And don't shame away any need to prove your point

People have the right to live because God gave them that right.

Not all people believe in God. And not all people believe God gives the right to life. And again, you refuse to explain what is protected by Freedom of Speech and what isn't, and why it's exactly like that

It is a fact that people have the right to live. You need to stop trolling.

It is not a fact actually. Again others don't believe what you believe. I want to know why your views on the Right to Life is right, and others wrong? You can't denounce what I'm saying and declare it null and void purely because you think your side is right, and you can't just declare my statements trolling and thus not need to give a proper responce. That's just as bad as Ad Hominem.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:06:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:54:31 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/24/2014 6:02:16 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?

You're creating a straw man, I am against death penalty and whatever they did in the Roman Colesseum, but that's a debate for another day. More to the point, the Romans did not have a concept of a universal right to life, hence the widespread slavery and warmongering imperialism. I can argue against the death penalty, as I have in a recent debate on here, to establish that my opposition of it is superior to the advocacy of it. Also I refer to ethical theories simply because they largely transcend the relativism of individual cultures and provide a wider scope for morality.

How have I strawed manned you? Do you even know what a Straw man is? I didn't. I argued that your views on what constitute the right to life were not and are not universally accepted, and I want to know why YOURS are right. Why are those who believe in the death penalty wrong? Why were the Roman's wrong? Don't just say "because everyone deserves it". You've already said that. I want to know why now. What is protected under right of life? Why do humans have a right to life.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, but what I thought you were saying is that I cannot assert a right to life and still claim that the death penalty and the Colosseum activities were not infringing this right. I do know what a straw man is, it is where one attacks a misconception of another's argument.
In a non-subjectivist, non-culturally relativistic morality I would argue it is moral to have a right to life under other ethical theories such as rule utilitarianism, deontology, golden rule etc.. How else can we assert moral truths? More to the point, how else could we debate moral issues if you can cop-out by resorting to subjectivism or cultural relativism?
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:16:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 12:06:57 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:54:31 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/24/2014 6:02:16 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?

You're creating a straw man, I am against death penalty and whatever they did in the Roman Colesseum, but that's a debate for another day. More to the point, the Romans did not have a concept of a universal right to life, hence the widespread slavery and warmongering imperialism. I can argue against the death penalty, as I have in a recent debate on here, to establish that my opposition of it is superior to the advocacy of it. Also I refer to ethical theories simply because they largely transcend the relativism of individual cultures and provide a wider scope for morality.

How have I strawed manned you? Do you even know what a Straw man is? I didn't. I argued that your views on what constitute the right to life were not and are not universally accepted, and I want to know why YOURS are right. Why are those who believe in the death penalty wrong? Why were the Roman's wrong? Don't just say "because everyone deserves it". You've already said that. I want to know why now. What is protected under right of life? Why do humans have a right to life.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, but what I thought you were saying is that I cannot assert a right to life and still claim that the death penalty and the Colosseum activities were not infringing this right. I do know what a straw man is, it is where one attacks a misconception of another's argument.
In a non-subjectivist, non-culturally relativistic morality I would argue it is moral to have a right to life under other ethical theories such as rule utilitarianism, deontology, golden rule etc.. How else can we assert moral truths? More to the point, how else could we debate moral issues if you can cop-out by resorting to subjectivism or cultural relativism?

Morality can only be objective if made so by a higher diety. As not every believes in a diety, and those who do don't have a singular idea, we can't use the argument of a diety overall in the discussion
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:18:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 12:16:32 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:06:57 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:54:31 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/24/2014 6:02:16 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?

You're creating a straw man, I am against death penalty and whatever they did in the Roman Colesseum, but that's a debate for another day. More to the point, the Romans did not have a concept of a universal right to life, hence the widespread slavery and warmongering imperialism. I can argue against the death penalty, as I have in a recent debate on here, to establish that my opposition of it is superior to the advocacy of it. Also I refer to ethical theories simply because they largely transcend the relativism of individual cultures and provide a wider scope for morality.

How have I strawed manned you? Do you even know what a Straw man is? I didn't. I argued that your views on what constitute the right to life were not and are not universally accepted, and I want to know why YOURS are right. Why are those who believe in the death penalty wrong? Why were the Roman's wrong? Don't just say "because everyone deserves it". You've already said that. I want to know why now. What is protected under right of life? Why do humans have a right to life.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, but what I thought you were saying is that I cannot assert a right to life and still claim that the death penalty and the Colosseum activities were not infringing this right. I do know what a straw man is, it is where one attacks a misconception of another's argument.
In a non-subjectivist, non-culturally relativistic morality I would argue it is moral to have a right to life under other ethical theories such as rule utilitarianism, deontology, golden rule etc.. How else can we assert moral truths? More to the point, how else could we debate moral issues if you can cop-out by resorting to subjectivism or cultural relativism?

Morality can only be objective if made so by a higher diety. As not every believes in a diety, and those who do don't have a singular idea, we can't use the argument of a diety overall in the discussion

So how then can we have any moral truths at all? If you are correct why are we even bothering to debate what is right and wrong?
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:42:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 12:18:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:16:32 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:06:57 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:54:31 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/24/2014 6:02:16 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?

You're creating a straw man, I am against death penalty and whatever they did in the Roman Colesseum, but that's a debate for another day. More to the point, the Romans did not have a concept of a universal right to life, hence the widespread slavery and warmongering imperialism. I can argue against the death penalty, as I have in a recent debate on here, to establish that my opposition of it is superior to the advocacy of it. Also I refer to ethical theories simply because they largely transcend the relativism of individual cultures and provide a wider scope for morality.

How have I strawed manned you? Do you even know what a Straw man is? I didn't. I argued that your views on what constitute the right to life were not and are not universally accepted, and I want to know why YOURS are right. Why are those who believe in the death penalty wrong? Why were the Roman's wrong? Don't just say "because everyone deserves it". You've already said that. I want to know why now. What is protected under right of life? Why do humans have a right to life.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, but what I thought you were saying is that I cannot assert a right to life and still claim that the death penalty and the Colosseum activities were not infringing this right. I do know what a straw man is, it is where one attacks a misconception of another's argument.
In a non-subjectivist, non-culturally relativistic morality I would argue it is moral to have a right to life under other ethical theories such as rule utilitarianism, deontology, golden rule etc.. How else can we assert moral truths? More to the point, how else could we debate moral issues if you can cop-out by resorting to subjectivism or cultural relativism?

Morality can only be objective if made so by a higher diety. As not every believes in a diety, and those who do don't have a singular idea, we can't use the argument of a diety overall in the discussion

So how then can we have any moral truths at all? If you are correct why are we even bothering to debate what is right and wrong?
thats what I'm asking you. Why exactly do humans have a right to life, and what is an isn't protected under it. and why?
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:04:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 12:42:24 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:18:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:16:32 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:06:57 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:54:31 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/24/2014 6:02:16 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?

You're creating a straw man, I am against death penalty and whatever they did in the Roman Colesseum, but that's a debate for another day. More to the point, the Romans did not have a concept of a universal right to life, hence the widespread slavery and warmongering imperialism. I can argue against the death penalty, as I have in a recent debate on here, to establish that my opposition of it is superior to the advocacy of it. Also I refer to ethical theories simply because they largely transcend the relativism of individual cultures and provide a wider scope for morality.

How have I strawed manned you? Do you even know what a Straw man is? I didn't. I argued that your views on what constitute the right to life were not and are not universally accepted, and I want to know why YOURS are right. Why are those who believe in the death penalty wrong? Why were the Roman's wrong? Don't just say "because everyone deserves it". You've already said that. I want to know why now. What is protected under right of life? Why do humans have a right to life.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, but what I thought you were saying is that I cannot assert a right to life and still claim that the death penalty and the Colosseum activities were not infringing this right. I do know what a straw man is, it is where one attacks a misconception of another's argument.
In a non-subjectivist, non-culturally relativistic morality I would argue it is moral to have a right to life under other ethical theories such as rule utilitarianism, deontology, golden rule etc.. How else can we assert moral truths? More to the point, how else could we debate moral issues if you can cop-out by resorting to subjectivism or cultural relativism?

Morality can only be objective if made so by a higher diety. As not every believes in a diety, and those who do don't have a singular idea, we can't use the argument of a diety overall in the discussion

So how then can we have any moral truths at all? If you are correct why are we even bothering to debate what is right and wrong?
thats what I'm asking you. Why exactly do humans have a right to life, and what is an isn't protected under it. and why?

Why do we have a right to life? We have because pretty much all ethical theories say that is moral to maintain a right to life.
What does it entail? A right to life is the negative right not to be killed unjustly. I don't know how more specific I can be on this.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:50:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:04:22 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:42:24 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:18:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:16:32 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:06:57 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:54:31 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/24/2014 6:02:16 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?

You're creating a straw man, I am against death penalty and whatever they did in the Roman Colesseum, but that's a debate for another day. More to the point, the Romans did not have a concept of a universal right to life, hence the widespread slavery and warmongering imperialism. I can argue against the death penalty, as I have in a recent debate on here, to establish that my opposition of it is superior to the advocacy of it. Also I refer to ethical theories simply because they largely transcend the relativism of individual cultures and provide a wider scope for morality.

How have I strawed manned you? Do you even know what a Straw man is? I didn't. I argued that your views on what constitute the right to life were not and are not universally accepted, and I want to know why YOURS are right. Why are those who believe in the death penalty wrong? Why were the Roman's wrong? Don't just say "because everyone deserves it". You've already said that. I want to know why now. What is protected under right of life? Why do humans have a right to life.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, but what I thought you were saying is that I cannot assert a right to life and still claim that the death penalty and the Colosseum activities were not infringing this right. I do know what a straw man is, it is where one attacks a misconception of another's argument.
In a non-subjectivist, non-culturally relativistic morality I would argue it is moral to have a right to life under other ethical theories such as rule utilitarianism, deontology, golden rule etc.. How else can we assert moral truths? More to the point, how else could we debate moral issues if you can cop-out by resorting to subjectivism or cultural relativism?

Morality can only be objective if made so by a higher diety. As not every believes in a diety, and those who do don't have a singular idea, we can't use the argument of a diety overall in the discussion

So how then can we have any moral truths at all? If you are correct why are we even bothering to debate what is right and wrong?
thats what I'm asking you. Why exactly do humans have a right to life, and what is an isn't protected under it. and why?

Why do we have a right to life? We have because pretty much all ethical theories say that is moral to maintain a right to life.

But what is Right to life. They can say it, but their ideas of what that right is are different. Some people believe in the Death Penalty. Some cultures believed it was ok to kill someone on an insult. Some cultures today say it's ok to kill a cheating spouse. Why are they wrong? Why exactly is your idea of what makes up Right to life correct? Simply saying it is because you think it is obviously doesn't work. And you can't say everyone knows those people were wrong, because that's not true, and people 100 years from now my very well believe your wrong.
So what do you think makes up right of life (right to not be unjustly killed is far too vague to even accept as an answer), and why is it those?
Why do we get the Right to Live, rather then the privilege to Live.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 2:16:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:50:16 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:04:22 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:42:24 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:18:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:16:32 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:06:57 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:54:31 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/24/2014 6:02:16 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/23/2014 8:17:44 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:37:10 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:52:39 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/22/2014 11:12:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have a right to life based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I agree with Dhardage to the extent at which this does not allow us to be careless with our lives and still expect us to keep them. However, in the context of human rights, every human has a right to life insofar as anybody who deliberately removes someone's life is wrong to do so.

Alright, but why? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may say Universal, is simply a human made document, certainly only in effect in the modern age. Prior ages have shown they don't consider it a right more so then just a privileged.

Why is it a right? Other then the fact that I can't murder someone

Well, to get to the actual core of the morality of a right to life, we would have to examine it under established ethical theories. Otherwise we descend into morally relativistic nihilism which cannot work in a civilised society,

Rule Utilitarianism: A rule that states 'give humans a right to life' will result in more pleasure and less pain than the absence of such a rule. Therefore it is moral to give humans a right to life.

Deontology: Do not kill is a categorical imperative, meaning that it is an intrinsically bad act to kill because firstly, it would lead to collapse of civil society and secondly, because it does not value humans as intrinsically valuable. Having established that killing is wrong, it follows that it is moral to instil a right to life.

Harm Principle: We only have moral freedom up to the point at which we harm others. Killing is harming others and so we do not have the moral freedom do kill. It therefore ensues that we have a right to life.

Golden Rule: 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you'. Pretty self-explanatory, most rational people want a right to life so therefore she should grant others a right to life.
OK but define what is considered Right to Life. So we can't kill. It Death Penalty right? What about the Roman's Colosseum? They didn't consider that as included in the Right to life.

What do you consider a part of that right, and what isn't protected under that right? And why is your view of that superior to those of other nations?

You're creating a straw man, I am against death penalty and whatever they did in the Roman Colesseum, but that's a debate for another day. More to the point, the Romans did not have a concept of a universal right to life, hence the widespread slavery and warmongering imperialism. I can argue against the death penalty, as I have in a recent debate on here, to establish that my opposition of it is superior to the advocacy of it. Also I refer to ethical theories simply because they largely transcend the relativism of individual cultures and provide a wider scope for morality.

How have I strawed manned you? Do you even know what a Straw man is? I didn't. I argued that your views on what constitute the right to life were not and are not universally accepted, and I want to know why YOURS are right. Why are those who believe in the death penalty wrong? Why were the Roman's wrong? Don't just say "because everyone deserves it". You've already said that. I want to know why now. What is protected under right of life? Why do humans have a right to life.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, but what I thought you were saying is that I cannot assert a right to life and still claim that the death penalty and the Colosseum activities were not infringing this right. I do know what a straw man is, it is where one attacks a misconception of another's argument.
In a non-subjectivist, non-culturally relativistic morality I would argue it is moral to have a right to life under other ethical theories such as rule utilitarianism, deontology, golden rule etc.. How else can we assert moral truths? More to the point, how else could we debate moral issues if you can cop-out by resorting to subjectivism or cultural relativism?

Morality can only be objective if made so by a higher diety. As not every believes in a diety, and those who do don't have a singular idea, we can't use the argument of a diety overall in the discussion

So how then can we have any moral truths at all? If you are correct why are we even bothering to debate what is right and wrong?
thats what I'm asking you. Why exactly do humans have a right to life, and what is an isn't protected under it. and why?

Why do we have a right to life? We have because pretty much all ethical theories say that is moral to maintain a right to life.

But what is Right to life. They can say it, but their ideas of what that right is are different. Some people believe in the Death Penalty. Some cultures believed it was ok to kill someone on an insult. Some cultures today say it's ok to kill a cheating spouse. Why are they wrong? Why exactly is your idea of what makes up Right to life correct? Simply saying it is because you think it is obviously doesn't work. And you can't say everyone knows those people were wrong, because that's not true, and people 100 years from now my very well believe your wrong.
So what do you think makes up right of life (right to not be unjustly killed is far too vague to even accept as an answer), and why is it those?
Why do we get the Right to Live, rather then the privilege to Live.
The thing is, morality is not dependent on what is culturally accepted,
I struggle to see why you question the definition of a right to life. It is a right to have life. This is analytically true because I am stating the definition of it, I explain what a right to life is based on analytic fact not personal opinion. Definitions are fact, not opinion. A right to life has a fixed definition and so cannot not be correct.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 2:27:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

But what is Right to life. They can say it, but their ideas of what that right is are different. Some people believe in the Death Penalty. Some cultures believed it was ok to kill someone on an insult. Some cultures today say it's ok to kill a cheating spouse. Why are they wrong? Why exactly is your idea of what makes up Right to life correct? Simply saying it is because you think it is obviously doesn't work. And you can't say everyone knows those people were wrong, because that's not true, and people 100 years from now my very well believe your wrong.
So what do you think makes up right of life (right to not be unjustly killed is far too vague to even accept as an answer), and why is it those?
Why do we get the Right to Live, rather then the privilege to Live.
The thing is, morality is not dependent on what is culturally accepted,
I struggle to see why you question the definition of a right to life. It is a right to have life. This is analytically true because I am stating the definition of it, I explain what a right to life is based on analytic fact not personal opinion. Definitions are fact, not opinion. A right to life has a fixed definition and so cannot not be correct.

No, it isn't true because you state it's definition. In fact that means nothing. And you say it isn't based on culture, but you fail to explain why your views are right. They aren't right. Islams is right. Or perhaps it's the Roman idea that is right. Can you prove me wrong? You can not come here and say your view on what makes up the right to life (something you've bluntly refused to do. You haven't explain what exactly is protected, simply that everyone has the right to life. You refuse to tell me what that means. Take Speach for example. I can't threaten someone or walk around with actually naked women on my shirt. There are certain restrictions to that right. Same with life, but you refuse to say what they are. If someone breaks into my house at night, do I not have the right to end him as a threat?) are right simply because they are. It doesn't work like that. WHY are yours right, why is everyone else wrong? You're not right because you know what a definition. And you still haven't explained why it's a right and not just a privilege. Simply because you know the definition, doesn't make it right
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 2:39:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 2:27:08 PM, Unitomic wrote:

But what is Right to life. They can say it, but their ideas of what that right is are different. Some people believe in the Death Penalty. Some cultures believed it was ok to kill someone on an insult. Some cultures today say it's ok to kill a cheating spouse. Why are they wrong? Why exactly is your idea of what makes up Right to life correct? Simply saying it is because you think it is obviously doesn't work. And you can't say everyone knows those people were wrong, because that's not true, and people 100 years from now my very well believe your wrong.
So what do you think makes up right of life (right to not be unjustly killed is far too vague to even accept as an answer), and why is it those?
Why do we get the Right to Live, rather then the privilege to Live.
The thing is, morality is not dependent on what is culturally accepted,
I struggle to see why you question the definition of a right to life. It is a right to have life. This is analytically true because I am stating the definition of it, I explain what a right to life is based on analytic fact not personal opinion. Definitions are fact, not opinion. A right to life has a fixed definition and so cannot not be correct.

You say it isn't based on culture, but you fail to explain why your views are right. They aren't right. Islams is right. Or perhaps it's the Roman idea that is right. Can you prove me wrong?
Do you want me to explain why morality is not what is socially approved?

You can not come here and say your view on what makes up the right to life (something you've bluntly refused to do. You haven't explain what exactly is protected, simply that everyone has the right to life. You refuse to tell me what that means.

It isn't a 'view' I have on what right to life is. I'm saying that right to life=a right to have life, it is true by definition. You are questioning analytic logic. You are basically asking me to explain why I am right when I say that a triangle has three sides. Also I do not need to go into what constitutes a right to life because it requires no qualification as to what it is; it is what it says on the tin.

Take Speach for example. I can't threaten someone or walk around with actually naked women on my shirt. There are certain restrictions to that right. Same with life, but you refuse to say what they are. If someone breaks into my house at night, do I not have the right to end him as a threat?) are right simply because they are.
It's not the same with life, as there are not restrictions to a right to life. You either have a right to life or you do not.

It doesn't work like that. WHY are yours right, why is everyone else wrong? You're not right because you know what a definition. And you still haven't explained why it's a right and not just a privilege. Simply because you know the definition, doesn't make it right
Because if it was a privilege, not a right, it would be a 'privilege to life' not 'right to life'.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 3:07:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 2:39:12 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/25/2014 2:27:08 PM, Unitomic wrote:

But what is Right to life. They can say it, but their ideas of what that right is are different. Some people believe in the Death Penalty. Some cultures believed it was ok to kill someone on an insult. Some cultures today say it's ok to kill a cheating spouse. Why are they wrong? Why exactly is your idea of what makes up Right to life correct? Simply saying it is because you think it is obviously doesn't work. And you can't say everyone knows those people were wrong, because that's not true, and people 100 years from now my very well believe your wrong.
So what do you think makes up right of life (right to not be unjustly killed is far too vague to even accept as an answer), and why is it those?
Why do we get the Right to Live, rather then the privilege to Live.
The thing is, morality is not dependent on what is culturally accepted,
I struggle to see why you question the definition of a right to life. It is a right to have life. This is analytically true because I am stating the definition of it, I explain what a right to life is based on analytic fact not personal opinion. Definitions are fact, not opinion. A right to life has a fixed definition and so cannot not be correct.

You say it isn't based on culture, but you fail to explain why your views are right. They aren't right. Islams is right. Or perhaps it's the Roman idea that is right. Can you prove me wrong?
Do you want me to explain why morality is not what is socially approved?

You can not come here and say your view on what makes up the right to life (something you've bluntly refused to do. You haven't explain what exactly is protected, simply that everyone has the right to life. You refuse to tell me what that means.

It isn't a 'view' I have on what right to life is. I'm saying that right to life=a right to have life, it is true by definition. You are questioning analytic logic. You are basically asking me to explain why I am right when I say that a triangle has three sides. Also I do not need to go into what constitutes a right to life because it requires no qualification as to what it is; it is what it says on the tin.

Take Speach for example. I can't threaten someone or walk around with actually naked women on my shirt. There are certain restrictions to that right. Same with life, but you refuse to say what they are. If someone breaks into my house at night, do I not have the right to end him as a threat?) are right simply because they are.
It's not the same with life, as there are not restrictions to a right to life. You either have a right to life or you do not.

It doesn't work like that. WHY are yours right, why is everyone else wrong? You're not right because you know what a definition. And you still haven't explained why it's a right and not just a privilege. Simply because you know the definition, doesn't make it right
Because if it was a privilege, not a right, it would be a 'privilege to life' not 'right to life'.
If it isn't based on the public views, then what is it based on. And you can't say we have a right to life just because it's called right of life. Name means nothing

You've failed completely here. You have completely ignored me completely. You have refused completely to say what is included in the Right of Life. Do I have the right to use deadly force on someone who broke into my house? Why is that fair but nothing else. You have refused to say why Isis isn't right about what is protected under Right to Life. Why is it that what you believe is fair is right.