Fair enough if there is a legal definition of “inalienable” I wasn’t aware of that.*
More accurately, you believe they are universal truths. Obviously I (and many other people) do not believe that…*
Fair enough if those are your beliefs, but it seems rather off topic. If you wish to start from an assumption that “Holy Trinity has an Inalienable Life.” then please go for it.*
Not sure what you’re referring to here. Where do you think I use circular reasoning?*
So are you saying that if a person isn’t “helping grow the individuals and society as a team, closer to living accordingly.” then they don’t have an inalienable right to life?*
I’m afraid you’ve confused me here. The above would appear to not even include all humans. So are you saying not all humans have an inalienable right to life?*
I’d be the first to recognize that this government does NOT recognize such a right. That does not really matter however, as human rights are not assigned by civil authority. They inhere as a result of being human. If you were so inclined, you could say they are assigned by God.
Whether or not you, others, or myself accept it, if we cannot find fallacies in the proposal, it must be Truth. So I request again, please share where the reasoning and system is illogical. Also my friend, if this is too hard of a Truth for you to accept now, let’s start simpler with working on bettering each of our qualities of patience and kindness.
You have limited your reasoning and justification to only the perspective of the US Authority, as indicated here:
Not quite this simple. Please consider the distinction between all creatures and humans. All humans(except Jesus Christ) are creatures/creations, but not all creatures are humans. Your initial question was asking: “How can you tell if a creature is purposeful?”
I apologize for not being wise enough to state the difficult concept clear enough. Please consider the following: A creature can be purposeful or purposeless in the growth of society. If a non-human creature is purposeful, it can be righteous or unrighteous. If it is righteous, then I believe it will have an inalienable right to live in the Kingdom of Heaven. If it is unrighteous, then I believe the non-human creature will simply die and not matter.
My question was definitely the latter.*
Ok, well let’s go for a justification starting from Christian assumptions then.*
Ok.*
Well what I was aiming for here was more like a modification to the golden rule, something like “do unto others as as others would have done unto them”. Rather than producing a set of required behaviours by majority.
Does morality change with the times? Yes, clearly it does, most of history is by modern standards barbaric and immoral, but they probably didn’t see it as such at the time. Their morality was different to ours because their societies were different.
Yes indeed, suffering is subjective. That is actually the strength of using it as an practicably objective measure. Let’s take a flippant and silly example.*
Er, no. But the explanation why I wrote that is in the next paragraph of that post. “As I said the above supports the idea that humans are reasonable to behave as though humans are more “valuable” than other animals. Just as (for example) apes are justified in behaving as though apes are more “valuable”.”
Nope, perhaps you meant to say that your perspective of what I wrote switched from species to individual without a blink of an eyelid.
Prove? What has proof got to do with anything? I was showing the conclusions of the point you’d written.
Are you really trying to argue that a person has to reason his way through the morality of the situation when he sees a dog attacking a child to determine if he’s morally correct in harming the dog to protect the child? If so i’m afraid i must disagree. And I think you know this is silly.
Nope.
Nope, I already said that i’m happy to work on the assumption that free will is genuine. I’m simply trying desperately to avoid shooting off down any unnecessary conversational rabbitholes (the kind we might end up in if say we start replying to posts from months ago).
Quibbling? You’re the one who’s trying to argue that all life forms have an inalienable right to life. I was simply querying the consequences of such a view. Since the conversation has moved on a LONG way since that point it seems to have become apparent that you resolve this difficulty by assigning a near zero moral value to an “inalienable right to life” therefore you are morally fine kill things with a right to life with minimal justification. Although to be fair you have yet to confirm that this is your position. It’d help if you could either confirm or deny incidentally.
When two people have a child we tend to say they have created a life. In common useage we don’t tend to use the term “created” to mean “created ex nihilo” otherwise nobody has ever created anything.
No it doesn’t, you need to be clear whether you are talking about individual lives or life in general for your statement to have any real meaning.
Nope. Perhaps you are struggling with the term “obligation”. Here, let me help.
Er? What? MY delaying tactic? My chief (name removed by moderator)ut to this thread has been to ask a single, pretty simple question. To date, despite innumerable posts, you have yet to provide any form of answer to that question (beyond the word “because”). And you’re accusing me of delaying tactics? And to top it off you’re making this accusation in reply to a post from months ago which we’ve long since moved past? I’m guessing this is some kind of joke yes?
It does happen, no I don’t think it’s justified.
Well for goodness sake don’t let me stop you TR, just dive right in there and provide a justification if you have one. By all means don’t worry about dredging up old posts from months ago to write replies to, just go right ahead and write out your justification. In fact feel free to just ignore this post entirely as well. If you’d just provide an answer to my question that’d be swell. Just for a reminder that question was:Your delaying tactic is merely postponing the outcome!
I’m pretty much on the same page here, even if no government on earth ever grants an inalienable right to life, that doesn’t mean that such a thing is not morally justifiable. Hence why I’m after a justification, not looking at the rights that governments enforce.
I tend to agree here too, but of course it all depends on how an inalienable right to life is justified. IF TR has an adequate justification that covers all living things having an inalienable right to life, then we can discuss the consequences of that (presumably being morally required to become a vegan / fruitarian for a starter).
No worries.
Right, first things first I’m going to go back and re-read where this bit came from.
No, I’m afraid you misunderstood, I was answering a specific point raised by another poster. To me it’s basically irrelevant whether any law recognises an inalienable right to life. If it is justified then it is justified. If it is not then it is not.*
Ok… So how can you tell if a given creature is purposeful? This seems vitally important as to you it would appear to hugely affect that creatures “rights”.
Strange, so you believe an “inalienable” right to life for a creature is lost if it ceases to have a purpose assigned to it by people? So that right can be taken away, so is not inalienable…*
Interesting, so you believe that some animals go to heaven and hell?
Interesting. So you’re saying that all humans have an inalienable right to life, and some animals too.
Before focusing on the other concepts, I would like to try and simply state the solution to the justification of an inalienable right:
Fantastic.*
Ok, depends what you mean by the term “granted” I think.*
Ok. I’m open to looking at this from whatever perspective.
So you are saying then that the foetus didn’t/doesn’t have an inalienable right to life?*
? I’m not sure how this relates to the question at hand. Is this your previous point about “everyone lives forever whether they want to or not”? If so could you explain the relevance please?
After further consideration from your thoughts and questions, please consider the following:
Ok, let’s take a look.*
As per my previous post this depends on what you mean by “grants”. Once again, if you mean “enforces” then I’d agree. If you mean “justifies” then I disagree. Please clarify.*
Well here we already run into some problems. Because if in the above you mean “grants” as “enforces” then God clearly doesn’t enforce a right to life. People can and do kill each other all the time.*
Ok…
Not really sure on the relevance of this bit to be honest. When we talk about governments granting their citizens rights we are really talking about them enforcing those rights. Ie restricting the freedom of other people to impinge upon those rights.*
This is somewhat disjointed, you seem to be saying that without the perspective of a god you can’t justify inalienable rights. But I’ve already repeatedly stated that if you wish to start from the assumption of the Christian concept of god existing, then I’m fine with you doing that.*
Er, IF it can be justified from that perspective then yes. But as yet I’ve not seen any justification from that or any other perspective. So to date NO.*
? So based on what you wrote in your last post that means that the foetus doesn’t have a right to life. Correct?*
So he’s only respecting it but not granting or enforcing it so the foetus still lacks the right? Correct?*
Ok, so again it appears (given what you wrote in your previous post) that the foetus doesn’t have the right. Correct?
Ok, but here again we hit the problem, you have said that God enforces a right to life for the foetus. But since abortions do indeed happen, clearly god (if “he” exists) doesn’t enforce this right.*
No worries, again though I’d really appreciate it if you have a justification for an “inalienable right to life” then I’d really like to see it. You can pick any starting assumptions or perspective you like.*
Hello again, my friend! I think I have finally understood what the justification lacks. Please consider the following:
Ok, let’s take a look.*
Ok.
Ok.
Ok, they sound like a fair set of assumptions for a Christian starting point.*
Ok. You seem to be saying that humans can choose to grant an inalienable right to life or not. The problem with this is that it would mean that humans have the ability to not grant the right. Which means it is not inalienable. Again inalienable (outwith the legal definition which I don’t know) means cannot be given away or taken away.
Ok, so this seems to be returning to your previous point that given Christian assumptions we are in fact all immortal. Therefore it’s impossible to kill anyone anyway.*
My pleasure.
I find it very interesting that you cannot come out and say, “Based on the Christian/Catholic “assumptions”(I assure you they are 100% Truth), an inalienable right to after life(as opposed to an inalienable life) is justified.” Instead you are avoiding the response and moving onto, “…we are all immortal.” Which is clearly not the Truth, rather we have an inalienable right to after life. Depending on what you use as your motivation will be how long you can live in the after life.
Ok. We seem to have moved from justifying an inalienable right to life, to justifying an inalienable right to an afterlife.*
And in response I must once again tell you that I have never fought for a right to kill. I have no desire or use for one. My point was simply that if we consider someones “right to life” to include their afterlife then even if you kill them you have still respected their right to life. Because you haven’t actually killed them.*
Cool, happy to have helped.
Please consider the following points:
Please take care not to confuse having an inalienable right to afterlife with an infinite afterlife. This is the same err you are making when considering an inalienable right to earthly life and an infinite earthly life. The right is inalienable because the authority which granted it will not take it away. The life can end because of lack of resources. In the afterlife, the length of life will depend on motivational resources.
If the right to kill is not an option to you, then refrain from using it in discussion. And recognize that if you will not kill human life, you are granting an inalienable right to life. Recognize that you have the option to kill whomever you please, but you will not, and therefore grant an inalienable right to life in the lives you assume authority over.
Throwing in my opinion here, but discussions of an afterlife are discussions that tend to be full of heresy and a lack of knowledge. I’ve personally have never been dead before, and I’ve never talked to any one that has been dead before. There is a significant epidemiological barrier there.