Legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion, please help refute

[tonyrey]

All life is valuable but not all life is equally valuable. We are justified in choosing the greater good and the lesser evil by giving priority to what we consider to be the most - or more - valuable forms of life. *Most people would agree that we are more valuable than apes because at the very least we can - and often do - prevent other forms of life from suffering unnecessarily.

Not at all. I included the unnecessary suffering (and death) of other forms of life as well as our own.

As indeed each species of animals does.

Animal behaviour is instinctive whereas we can choose to override instinct.

Preferring our own kind is genetically programmed into us and as such requires no justification per se because its just a change in perspective.

Do you believe all our preferences are programmed?

However, a categoric difference like an inalienable right to life for one species but not for any others would require justification*(or several species but not others for that matter, you never said how many species you consider to have an inalienable right to life).

All species because we have an obligation to conserve not destroy life on this planet - subject to choosing the lesser evils.

So anyway, the question still stands. Is an inalienable right to life for humans justified, and if so, how?

1. We did not create life
2. We do not have a good reason to destroy life
3. We have an obligation to be reasonable

If you value something it is unreasonable to allow it to be destroyed unnecessarily. Your unwillingness to justify killing implies that you agree!

Indeed, I do. However, that’s got nothing to do with inalienable rights. I value my car, that doesn’t mean it has an inalienable right to exist.

Do you believe in unnecessary destruction?

 

[jochoa]

Ok, that’s got to go on record as being the weirdest question I’ve ever been asked on CAF. To answer for you - I have NEVER fought for a right to kill.

Ok, now perhaps now that I have answered your question for you, you’d do me the kindness of answering mine?*

Once again, is an inalienable right to life for humans justified, if so, how? (Here are some suggested answers to make this easier for you):

A). I believe it is justified yes, I just don’t know how, or where to find out how.

B). Yes it is, and I know how. But I’m not going to tell you.*

C). No, I don’t believe it is justified.*

D). No, I don’t believe it is justified, nor does it require justification, it’s just a brute fact.

Regarding my question, you are correct in that you have never fought for a right to kill. Therefore, I am sorry for having offended you. I apologize for assuming your stance on the issue regarding abortion. In future discussions, I will try my best not to assume on your behalf again.

Regarding your stance on abortion: My assumption came from the culmination of your “what ifs…” And after considering the transcripts, perhaps you have not been asked nor stated your stance on abortion. Therefore, what is your stance on abortion?

Regarding your question:
B(and a half): Yes it is, and I know how, however, I currently do not have the wisdom to present it to your liking.
To better help me explain it to you, would you please share with me the criteria you propose as necessary for justification?
Please keep in mind:
Inalienable means the possessor of the right cannot take it away.
Inalienable Right means the governor of the possessor of the right cannot take it away.

Thank you very much for your patience with me. You have helped me learn great insights into perspective, and I appreciate the challenges you present.

 

[Candide_West]

Not at all. I included the unnecessary suffering (and death) of other forms of life as well as our own.*

To clarify, you said “We are justified in choosing the greater good and the lesser evil by giving priority to what **we consider **to be the most - or more - valuable forms of life. Most **people would agree **that we are more valuable than apes because…” (emphasis mine)

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”.

This doesn’t conflict with us avoiding causing unnecessary suffering to animals, but it does justify people preventing pain to a child even if it means causing greater pain to a dog (for example).*
*

*Animal behaviour is instinctive whereas we can choose to override instinct.

Broadly true, but in this specific area it must be very, very rare. There are very few people out there who have overcome their instinctive preference for members of our own species and would (for example) shoot a person to protect a dog.*

However, I suspect that few other animals could overwhelm this instinct either. Although I have witnessed dogs doing this come to think of it (attacking another dog to protect a human).

*Do you believe all our preferences are programmed?

Well that’s always been an interesting area of discussion. But not one I think we need to get into here, we’ll probably head off down a free will tangent otherwise.

All species because we have an obligation to conserve not destroy life on this planet - subject to choosing the lesser evils.

This seems somewhat problematic. Does this mean that you are a fruitarian then? I think I’m right in saying that’s the only form of diet which doesn’t involve killing any plants or animals.*

In any case this would only appear to expand the justification required. Although I fear that if correct it also makes the behaviour of the vast majority of the population reprehensible… Anyway, onto the justification.*

*1. We did not create life

True. Assuming you are talking about life in general as opposed to specific individual lives.*

*2. We do not have a good reason to destroy life

Certainly not to destroy all life, but surely there must be good reasons to destroy specific lives, even if only to protect other lives?

*3. We have an obligation to be reasonable

I’m dubious on this one, where does this obligation come from? Don’t get me wrong, I do my best to behave in a reasoned manner, but I do this because I have found it a useful tool for managing my behaviour as opposed to because I’m under some obligation to do so.*

In any case we still seem to be some way from reaching the conclusion of “…therefore humans have an inalienable right to life”, was this intended to be the first part of a justification?

*Do you believe in unnecessary destruction?

Do I believe it happens or do I believe it should happen?*

If you are asking the former then I’d say yes, although I suppose you could make an argument that destruction of one thing is just creation of others…

But I digress, in any case I believe it does happen but can’t see a justification for it. I suppose the challenge would lie in defining “unnecessary”.

 

[tonyrey]

I included the unnecessary suffering (and death) of other forms of life as well as our own.*
To clarify, you said “We are justified in choosing the greater good and the lesser evil by giving priority to what we consider to be the most - or more - valuable forms of life. Most people would agree that we are more valuable than apes because…” (emphasis mine)

*Animal behaviour is instinctive whereas we can choose to override instinct.
Broadly true, but in this specific area it must be very, very rare. There are very few people out there who have overcome their instinctive preference for members of our own species and would (for example) shoot a person to protect a dog.

People don’t normally shoot a person because of an instinctive preference but because they believe it is wrong.

However, I suspect that few other animals could overwhelm this instinct either. Although I have witnessed dogs doing this come to think of it (attacking another dog to protect a human).

Domestic dogs do so because they are domesticated!

Do you believe all our preferences are programmed?

Well that’s always been an interesting area of discussion. But not one I think we need to get into here, we’ll probably head off down a free will tangent otherwise.

Your statements imply that they are programmed, e.g. “their instinctive preference”.

All species because we have an obligation to conserve not destroy life on this planet - subject to choosing the lesser evils.*

This seems somewhat problematic. Does this mean that you are a fruitarian then? I think I’m right in saying that’s the only form of diet which doesn’t involve killing any plants or animals.

The consumption of plants and animals is compatible with conservation!

In any case this would only appear to expand the justification required. Although I fear that if correct it also makes the behaviour of the vast majority of the population reprehensible…

Not if the principle of the lesser evil is taken into account.

1. We did not create life

True. Assuming you are talking about life in general as opposed to specific individual lives.
We procreate but we do not create.

1. We do not have a good reason to destroy life

Certainly not to destroy all life, but surely there must be good reasons to destroy specific lives, even if only to protect other lives?
The basic principle is still valid.

1. We have an obligation to be reasonable

I’m dubious on this one, where does this obligation come from? Don’t get me wrong, I do my best to behave in a reasoned manner, but I do this because I have found it a useful tool for managing my behaviour as opposed to because I’m under some obligation to do so.
Your participation on this forum implies that you accept that obligation! I’m sure you don’t live according to the obligation to be unreasonable…

In any case we still seem to be some way from reaching the conclusion of …therefore humans have an inalienable right to life", was this intended to be the first part of a justification?

All rational justifications entail being reasonable - unless you can prove otherwise!

Do you believe in unnecessary destruction?

Do I believe it happens or do I believe it should happen?*

If you are asking the former then I’d say yes, although I suppose you could make an argument that destruction of one thing is just creation of others…

But I digress, in any case I believe it does happen but can’t see a justification for it. I suppose the challenge would lie in defining “unnecessary”.

Can you see any justification for anything?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Candide_West]

Regarding my question, you are correct in that you have never fought for a right to kill. Therefore, I am sorry for having offended you. I apologize for assuming your stance on the issue regarding abortion. In future discussions, I will try my best not to assume on your behalf again.

No worries, you haven’t caused offence.

*Regarding your stance on abortion: My assumption came from the culmination of your “what ifs…” And after considering the transcripts, perhaps you have not been asked nor stated your stance on abortion. Therefore, what is your stance on abortion?

I guess I would describe my stance as largely neutral but with some pro-choice leanings. For example I do tend to think that we shouldn’t force women to risk their lives with highly dangerous pregnancies, especially where the pregnancy was not desired in the first place.

However, I think a strong anti-abortion argument would be if an inalienable right to life for humans if it is justified. As I said, I’ve not heard such a justification as yet, but I’m open to finding one.

*Regarding your question:
B(and a half): Yes it is, and I know how, however, I currently do not have the wisdom to present it to your liking.
To better help me explain it to you, would you please share with me the criteria you propose as necessary for justification?

Well there are a number of different kinds of justification that can be formed, logical deduction, induction, empirical observation… Etc. If you’re interested there’s loads of articles on wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet to help you with how to form justifications.

A simple example using boolean operators might be…

1.*C = TRUE, IF A AND B are TRUE (axiomatic basis of this particular system)
2. We know A is TRUE (from empirical observation)
3. We know B is TRUE (from logical deduction)
4. Therefore C = TRUE

Something like “having opposable thumbs gives humans an inalienable right to life” is an assertion, not a justification.*

*Please keep in mind:
Inalienable means the possessor of the right cannot take it away.
Inalienable Right means the governor of the possessor of the right cannot take it away.

I’d put it a bit more simply (as you did before I think) as "an inalienable right is one which cannot be taken away or given away.

 

[Candide_West]

Your comparison is invalid because apes do not **choose **to believe they are more valuable than we are. I have also given a reason why we are more valuable in at least one respect.

I don’t think people “choose” to value other people more highly than other animals. If you think something is a choice then an easy rule of thumb is whether you could choose not to do it. So could you choose to value a dogs life more highly than that of a given person? If not then it isn’t a “choice” in any meaningful sense. I personally couldn’t genuinely choose to value an animals life over that of a human. Thus, for me at least, it is not a choice.*

*People don’t normally shoot a person because of an instinctive preference but because they believe it is wrong.

No, mostly people don’t shoot people because they simply have no desire to do so.*

*Domestic dogs do so because they are domesticated!

Yes, but it is an example of an animal going against an instinctive preference for their own species. Whether you call it a choice or an instinct, that’s not something many humans ever do.*

Your statements imply that they are programmed, e.g. “their instinctive preference”.

As I said, I’m not wanting to go off down a free-will rabbit hole here. As far as I can tell humans do have an instinctive preference for our own species, just as we have protective instincts for children. And as you have pointed out, we can (at least in theory) override those preferences. So whether they are instinctive or not doesn’t mean that they are “programmed” in any meaningful sense.

*The consumption of plants and animals is compatible with conservation!

But not (at least as far as I can see) with plants and animals having an inalienable right to life. After all if you are willing to kill a creature which has an inalienable right to life over something as minor as a dietary preference this leads me to think that an inalienable right to life is not worth much to you.

*Not if the principle of the lesser evil is taken into account.

If all living things have an inalienable right to life then surely killing them must be inherently immoral? Even if not then at the least we should kill the smallest number of living things we can survive on and if we count lesser evil you mentioned into the equation then we should kill only the lowest level living things we can live off.*

So this means that morally we’d be obliged to use a fruitarian diet, possibly complimented with vegetables or similar as required for our health. However, the majority of the population in western countries eat much more than required for survival and merrily consume meat on a daily basis. Thus immoral.*

*We procreate but we do not create.

Ok.*

*The basic principle is still valid.

? What basic principle? Are you talking about life as a whole or specific lives?

If the former then as I said I agree we don’t have a good reason. But since I don’t think that many people have ever decided they’d like to obliterate all life (let alone had the capability to do so) this seems of little relevance.*

If the latter then as I said this seems to be inaccurate, there are cases when death of one creature is required to protect another or to enable the life of another.*

*Your participation on this forum implies that you accept that obligation! I’m sure you don’t live according to the obligation to be unreasonable…

That would be a false dichotomy, just because I don’t live under an obligation to be unreasonable doesn’t mean that I live under an obligation to be reasonable.*

Again, I know of no such obligation either way.

*All rational justifications entail being reasonable - unless you can prove otherwise!

Interesting that you bring up proof. Theists seem to often get caught up with a desire for proving things. But in reality we can “prove” very little about the real world. What’s that quote - “Proof is for mathematics and alcohol”?

In this case I’m just looking for a justification for something I’ve often heard stated, but never yet seen supported. This seems reasonable to me at least. If you know of a way to justify an inalienable right to life, I’m all ears.*

*Can you see any justification for anything?

Of course, that’s a bit of an odd question. Especially when I noted earlier in this very conversation that you had provided a (somewhat truncated but still valid) justification for life being valuable.

 

[jochoa]

No worries, you haven’t caused offence.

I guess I would describe my stance as largely neutral but with some pro-choice leanings. For example I do tend to think that we shouldn’t force women to risk their lives with highly dangerous pregnancies, especially where the pregnancy was not desired in the first place.

However, I think a strong anti-abortion argument would be if an inalienable right to life for humans if it is justified. As I said, I’ve not heard such a justification as yet, but I’m open to finding one.

Well there are a number of different kinds of justification that can be formed, logical deduction, induction, empirical observation… Etc. If you’re interested there’s loads of articles on wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet to help you with how to form justifications.

A simple example using boolean operators might be…

1.*C = TRUE, IF A AND B are TRUE (axiomatic basis of this particular system)
2. We know A is TRUE (from empirical observation)
3. We know B is TRUE (from logical deduction)
4. Therefore C = TRUE

Something like “having opposable thumbs gives humans an inalienable right to life” is an assertion, not a justification.*

I’d put it a bit more simply (as you did before I think) as "an inalienable right is one which cannot be taken away or given away.

Thank you for your responses. There are very well presented.

And I think the troubles of recognizing a Justified reasoning for an Inalienable Right lies in the simplicity of the accepted definition. Though you are correct in that earlier, I ignorantly stated that definition. Upon accepting the fullness and variances of the two terms, it became far easier to recognize either the subjectivity of an Inalienable Right granted by a governor, or the Absoluteness of an Inalienable Right granted by The Creator of Everything.

I had an excellent time discussing this topic with you. I look forward to discussing other topics with you. You have helped me learn tremendous amounts of perspective. I hope you find a justification which supports a Perfect Balance of Patience, Kindness, and Motivation.

 

[Candide_West]

Thank you for your responses. There are very well presented.

And I think the troubles of recognizing a Justified reasoning for an Inalienable Right lies in the simplicity of the accepted definition. Though you are correct in that earlier, I ignorantly stated that definition. Upon accepting the fullness and variances of the two terms, it became far easier to recognize either the subjectivity of an Inalienable Right granted by a governor, or the Absoluteness of an Inalienable Right granted by The Creator of Everything.

I had an excellent time discussing this topic with you. I look forward to discussing other topics with you. You have helped me learn tremendous amounts of perspective. I hope you find a justification which supports a Perfect Balance of Patience, Kindness, and Motivation.

Righto, no worries. Thanks for trying anyway, it was an interesting chat.*

I’ll see how things go with Tonyrey. If that doesn’t work out I may start a new thread to cast my net a little wider.*

Take care.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think people “choose” to value other people more highly than other animals. If you think something is a choice then an easy rule of thumb is whether you could choose not to do it. So could you choose to value a dog’s life more highly than that of a given person?

Many people do because they buy luxuries for their dog when they know children are starving to death. In the past I have done the same in the distant past.

If not then it isn’t a “choice” in any meaningful sense. I personally couldn’t genuinely choose to value an animals life over that of a human. Thus, for me at least, it is not a choice.

It is a habit rather than a choice but when you think about it you reaffirm the choice.

People don’t normally shoot a person because of an instinctive preference but because they believe it is wrong.

No, mostly people don’t shoot people because they simply have no desire to do so.

We are creatures of habit but those habits are primarily based on rational choices and moral values - unless we are lunatics or criminals!

Domestic dogs do so because they are domesticated!

Yes, but it is an example of an animal going against an instinctive preference for their own species. Whether you call it a choice or an instinct, that’s not something many humans ever do.

We are rarely faced with that situation.

Your statements imply that they are programmed, e.g. “their instinctive preference”.

As I said, I’m not wanting to go off down a free-will rabbit hole here. As far as I can tell humans do have an instinctive preference for our own species, just as we have protective instincts for children. And as you have pointed out, we can (at least in theory) override those preferences. So whether they are instinctive or not doesn’t mean that they are “programmed” in any meaningful sense.

I agree! The question is “How?”

The consumption of plants and animals is compatible with conservation!

But not (at least as far as I can see) with plants and animals having an inalienable right to life. After all if you are willing to kill a creature which has an inalienable right to life over something as minor as a dietary preference this leads me to think that an inalienable right to life is not worth much to you.

I’m a vegetarian!

Not if the principle of the lesser evil is taken into account.

If all living things have an inalienable right to life then surely killing them must be inherently immoral? Even if not then at the least we should kill the smallest number of living things we can survive on and if we count lesser evil you mentioned into the equation then we should kill only the lowest level living things we can live off.

I agree!

So this means that morally we’d be obliged to use a fruitarian diet, possibly complimented with vegetables or similar as required for our health. However, the majority of the population in western countries eat much more than required for survival and merrily consume meat on a daily basis. Thus immoral.

They are not immoral because they believe they are justified.

The basic principle is still valid.

? What basic principle? Are you talking about life as a whole or specific lives?

Both!

If the former then as I said I agree we don’t have a good reason. But since I don’t think that many people have ever decided they’d like to obliterate all life (let alone had the capability to do so) this seems of little relevance.

But it is highly significant.

If the latter then as I said this seems to be inaccurate, there are cases when death of one creature is required to protect another or to enable the life of another.

Once again it is the lesser evil.

Your participation on this forum implies that you accept that obligation! I’m sure you don’t live according to the obligation to be unreasonable…

That would be a false dichotomy, just because I don’t live under an obligation to be unreasonable doesn’t mean that I live under an obligation to be reasonable.

Sartre pointed out that we cannot sit on the fence. To ignore obligations amounts to rejecting them…

All rational justifications entail being reasonable - unless you can prove otherwise!

Interesting that you bring up proof. Theists seem to often get caught up with a desire for proving things. But in reality we can “prove” very little about the real world. What’s that quote - “Proof is for mathematics and alcohol”?

If you prefer non-mathematical and non-alcoholic refreshment > :

All rational justifications entail being reasonable - unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

In this case I’m just looking for a justification for something I’ve often heard stated, but never yet seen supported. This seems reasonable to me at least. If you know of a way to justify an inalienable right to life, I’m all ears.

Can you see any justification for anything?Of course, that’s a bit of an odd question. Especially when I noted earlier in this very conversation that you had provided a (somewhat truncated but still valid) justification for life being valuable.

I’m delighted we agree! That’s quite an achievement…

 

[macroom2]

In the Gospel of Luke Mary is only a few weeks pregnant when she visits her cousin Elizabeth, but Elizabeth and John the Baptist in her womb recognize Jesus. He wasn’t just a blob of protoplasm. He was already true God and true man. The Didache is probably the oldest Christian writing outside of the New Testament. It condemns abortion. Scientists tell us that there is a unique human being from the moment of conception.

For the arguments against contraception read the pamphlet Birth Control & Discipleship by John Kippley. It is published by the Couple to Couple League, an organization that teaches natural family planning.

 

[Candide_West]

Many people do because they buy luxuries for their dog when they know children are starving to death. In the past I have done the same in the distant past.

The situation you describe is not the same as valuing the life of your dog over that of a human. As I’m sure you are well aware. A more realistic situation would be if a person faced with a starving child and a starving dog decided to feed the dog in preference to the child.*

I don’t think that happens very often somehow.

*It is a habit rather than a choice but when you think about it you reaffirm the choice.

But no, I don’t affirm the choice, as I said there is no choice in this for me because I cannot “choose” to do other than value human life more highly. As I said, it’s not a choice in any meaningful sense.

*We are creatures of habit but those habits are primarily based on rational choices and moral values - unless we are lunatics or criminals!

Not at all, many people are unable to justify why things are moral or immoral, that doesn’t mean they’re criminals. As I said, most of the time people don’t commit crimes because they simply have no desire to do so.

*We are rarely faced with that situation.

And yet it does happen, and the response is entirely predictable every time. As that quote you provided a few posts back demonstrated.

*I agree! The question is “How?”

Great, so we’ll just avoid the free-will rabbit hole then yes?*

*I’m a vegetarian!

Ok, but you said you believe in an inalienable right to life for all species. Not just animals. Most vegetarians I know eat root vegetables (which are killed by being harvested). So even this would be killing something with an inalienable right to life based on a dietary preference (that’s why I mentioned fruitarians previously).*

I suspect that when you said all species you actually meant all species of animals, am I correct? If so you’d be back to needing to justify the boundary.

Incidentally has the catholic church taken a formal position of whether people / animals / plants have an inalienable right to life?*

*I agree! * *

Ok, so you switching to fruitarianism then?*

*They are not immoral because they believe they are justified.

Ahh come now, just believing you are justified is hardly sufficient. Hitler probably believed he was justified, Polpot certainly did, so did Stalin. That doesn’t mean their actions weren’t immoral.*

*But it is highly significant.

Perhaps in another conversation, maybe one about the relative merits of the existence of life. But not significant to this discussion as far as I can tell.*

*Once again it is the lesser evil.

Right, so that provides the justification which shows the original statement to be inaccurate.*

*Sartre pointed out that we cannot sit on the fence. To ignore obligations amounts to rejecting them…

Ok, but to not have obligations doesn’t amount to ignoring them. For example I don’t have an obligation to care for my dog (because I don’t have a dog). Thus I am not ignoring the obligation, it is simply not present.*

*If you prefer non-mathematical and non-alcoholic refreshment > :

All rational justifications entail being reasonable - unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.*

Much better *

However, it still doesn’t mean I’m under an obligation to be reasonable. I’m still just doing my best to be so because I think it’s useful.

Nor I’m afraid do I understand what this has got to do with the subject at hand.*

*I’m delighted we agree! That’s quite an achievement…

Ok, good. However, interesting as all of this is, could we just dance back over to my original question by chance? That is*

• Is an inalienable right to life for humans justified, if so, how?

Thanks.

 

[tonyrey]

Many people do because they buy luxuries for their dog when they know children are starving to death. In the past I have done the same in the distant past.

Quite a few people in the UK are so besotted with their pets they would do precisely that!

It is a habit rather than a choice but when you think about it you reaffirm the choice.

But no, I don’t affirm the choice, as I said there is no choice in this for me because I cannot “choose” to do other than value human life more highly. As I said, it’s not a choice in any meaningful sense.

Do you regard it as irrational?

We are creatures of habit but those habits are primarily based on rational choices and moral values - unless we are lunatics or criminals!

Not at all, many people are unable to justify why things are moral or immoral, that doesn’t mean they’re criminals. As I said, most of the time people don’t commit crimes because they simply have no desire to do so.

Most people have been brought up to believe it is wrong to commit crimes - and given reasons why.

We are rarely faced with that situation.

And yet it does happen, and the response is entirely predictable every time. As that quote you provided a few posts back demonstrated.

You will have to explain…

I agree! The question is “How?”

Great, so we’ll just avoid the free-will rabbit hole then yes?

Why are you averse to discussing it?

I’m a vegetarian!

Ok, but you said you believe in an inalienable right to life for all species. Not just animals. Most vegetarians I know eat root vegetables (which are killed by being harvested). So even this would be killing something with an inalienable right to life based on a dietary preference (that’s why I mentioned fruitarians previously).

Reverence for life doesn’t necessitate extremism!

I suspect that when you said all species you actually meant all species of animals, am I correct? If so you’d be back to needing to justify the boundary.

I stated that all life is valuable but not equally valuable.

Incidentally has the catholic church taken a formal position of whether people / animals / plants have an inalienable right to life?

Probably not but we are taught that we are the stewards of Creation and should respect life.

Ok, so you switching to fruitarianism then?

I don’t believe it is morally wrong to eat fish, eggs or dairy products. When I became a vegetarian I gave up fish and after a few weeks realised the lack of certain nutrients was affecting me after a lifetime of a normal diet.

They are not immoral because they believe they are justified.

Ahh come now, just believing you are justified is hardly sufficient. Hitler probably believed he was justified, Polpot certainly did, so did Stalin. That doesn’t mean their actions weren’t immoral.

The difference is that eating meat has been a necessity for most people and is generally accepted as legitimate.

But it is highly significant.

Perhaps in another conversation, maybe one about the relative merits of the existence of life. But not significant to this discussion as far as I can tell.

Merits are related to value.

Once again it is the lesser evil.

Right, so that provides the justification which shows the original statement to be inaccurate.

How?

Sartre pointed out that we cannot sit on the fence. To ignore obligations amounts to rejecting them…

Ok, but to not have obligations doesn’t amount to ignoring them. For example I don’t have an obligation to care for my dog (because I don’t have a dog). Thus I am not ignoring the obligation, it is simply not present.

At present! But they may well arise…

If you prefer non-mathematical and non-alcoholic refreshment > :

All rational justifications entail being reasonable - unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

Much better

It amounts to the same. “Probability is the very guide of life…”

However, it still doesn’t mean I’m under an obligation to be reasonable. I’m still just doing my best to be so because I think it’s useful.

Useful = valuable.

Nor I’m afraid do I understand what this has got to do with the subject at hand.

Morality is based on reason not emotion.

I’m delighted we agree! That’s quite an achievement…

Ok, good. However, interesting as all of this is, could we just dance back over to my original question by chance? That is

• Is an inalienable right to life for humans justified, if so, how?

By the Golden Rule and the principle of equality.

 

[Candide_West]

Quite a few people in the UK are so besotted with their pets they would do precisely that!

I disagree, perhaps I have a little more faith in people than you do.*

*Do you regard it as irrational?

No, but again obviously that does not make it a choice. Many things which are not irrational are also not choices. For example loving my family, I never decided to do so. I could not decide to stop. I don’t consider it to be irrational.

*Most people have been brought up to believe it is wrong to commit crimes - and given reasons why.

Ok, but that is generally not the reason that we don’t commit crimes. Most men don’t sexually assault their children, why? Is it because they have weighed the moral justifications and have decided against it? Or because they have no desire to do so? Perhaps indeed that the very idea is repulsive? I think the latter, I fear that if it were truly the former we’d be living in a vastly more immoral society than we are now.*

*You will have to explain…

Never mind, it’s not terribly relevant anyway.*

*Why are you averse to discussing it?

Because I’ve seen plenty of free will based debates on this forum and taken part in a few. They tend to be lengthy and highly involved. And as I’ve said before, my purpose here is to discern an answer to a relatively simple question. Not get bogged down in debating the extent of free will.

*Reverence for life doesn’t necessitate extremism!

Ok,but an inalienable right to life would necessitate us not killing. Otherwise it doesn’t really mean anything.

I stated that all life is valuable but not equally valuable

Yes, and you also said “all species” when I asked which species you consider to have an inalienable right to life. So again, am I right in guessing that you only meant animals?

*Probably not but we are taught that we are the stewards of Creation and should respect life.

Ok, thanks.

I don’t believe it is morally wrong to eat fish, eggs or dairy products. When I became a vegetarian I gave up fish and after a few weeks realised the lack of certain nutrients was affecting me after a lifetime of a normal diet.

Interesting, so it seems then that you do cause the death of creatures which you consider to have an inalienable right to life based on a dietary preference.

*The difference is that eating meat has been a necessity for most people and is generally accepted as legitimate.

Yes, but burning “witches” was once generally considered necessary and legitimate. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong. Do you really mean to say that something being common means it’s moral?

*How?

Well your original statement was “we don’t have a good reason to destroy life”. Now you have said (assuming I understand you correctly) that it is sometimes a lesser evil to destroy one life rather than permit the destruction of another (or many). So that does provide “good reason” to destroy life in certain cases. So while your original statement may still apply to all life in general, it clearly does not apply to each life individually.

*At present! But they may well arise…

Ok, so I’ll let you know if I get a dog. Or if I find myself under an “obligation” to be reasonable.

Useful = valuable.

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. For example when setting up a camp near an old river bed, I need some rocks to surround the fire, there are thousands of rocks laying around. So I use some. They are useful, they are not any more valuable than the thousands of others I didn’t use. Equally many things are considered valuable which are not terribly useful.*

Also, even if a tool is valuable that does not make it’s use obligatory.

*Morality is based on reason not emotion.

Ok, but that doesn’t make reason obligatory.*

*By the Golden Rule and the principle of equality.

Could you explain please? I’m aware of both of these but know of know way to justify an inalienable right to life on this basis.

Thanks.

 

[Candide_West]

…

Tonyrey, just wondered if you have any further thoughts to share on this subject? If not I may open a new thread to see if others can answer my question. But I thought I’d check back with you first in case you’ve just not had a chance to write.

Thanks.

 

[jochoa]

Candide West, if it can be objectively demonstrated that Humans as a Species have a Moral Superiority to all other Species, would this be Justification for an Inalienable Right to Life…or would this also be considered an “opposable thumb” argument?

 

[Candide_West]

Candide West, if it can be objectively demonstrated that Humans as a Species have a Moral Superiority to all other Species, would this be Justification for an Inalienable Right to Life…or would this also be considered an “opposable thumb” argument?

Hey jochoa,

You could potentially make an argument for something like “if any species has an inalienable right to life then humans do” on that basis. But unless you can establish that other species have an inalienable right to life, then that doesn’t help really.

 

[tonyrey]

Quite a few people in the UK are so besotted with their pets they would do precisely that!

The fact that when people are starving they leave everything to animal charities in their wills is significant… (Sorry for the delay. Sometimes I lose track of the threads I’ve posted to).

Do you regard it as irrational?

No, but again obviously that does not make it a choice. Many things which are not irrational are also not choices. For example loving my family, I never decided to do so. I could not decide to stop. I don’t consider it to be irrational.

If they tortured you you might do so!

Most people have been brought up to believe it is wrong to commit crimes - and given reasons why.

Ok, but that is generally not the reason that we don’t commit crimes. Most men don’t sexually assault their children, why? Is it because they have weighed the moral justifications and have decided against it?

Or because they have no desire to do so? Perhaps indeed that the very idea is repulsive? I think the latter, I fear that if it were truly the former we’d be living in a vastly more immoral society than we are now.

Because reasons become habits!

Why are you averse to discussing it?

Because I’ve seen plenty of free will based debates on this forum and taken part in a few. They tend to be lengthy and highly involved. And as I’ve said before, my purpose here is to discern an answer to a relatively simple question. Not get bogged down in debating the extent of free will.

It’s not a question of extent but intent! Either your intentions always have physical causes or they don’t…

Reverence for life doesn’t necessitate extremism!

Ok,but an inalienable right to life would necessitate us not killing. Otherwise it doesn’t really mean anything.

Not if you accept the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils.

I stated that all life is valuable but not equally valuable

Yes, and you also said “all species” when I asked which species you consider to have an inalienable right to life. So again, am I right in guessing that you only meant animals?

No. Plant life shouldn’t be destroyed wantonly.

Probably not but we are taught that we are the stewards of Creation and should respect life.

Ok, thanks.

Which I’m sure you agree with…

I don’t believe it is morally wrong to eat fish, eggs or dairy products. When I became a vegetarian I gave up fish and after a few weeks realised the lack of certain nutrients was affecting me after a lifetime of a normal diet.

Interesting, so it seems then that you do cause the death of creatures which you consider to have an inalienable right to life based on a dietary preference.

On a **health **preference. It is the lesser of two evils.

The difference is that eating meat has been a necessity for most people and is generally accepted as legitimate.

Yes, but burning “witches” was once generally considered necessary and legitimate. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong. Do you really mean to say that something being common means it’s moral?

The view that its legitimacy is based on necessity is accepted by most people because it is reasonable. All morality has a rational basis.

Well your original statement was “we don’t have a good reason to destroy life”. Now you have said (assuming I understand you correctly) that it is sometimes a lesser evil to destroy one life rather than permit the destruction of another (or many). So that does provide “good reason” to destroy life in certain cases. So while your original statement may still apply to all life in general, it clearly does not apply to each life individually.

*At present! But they may well arise…Ok, so I’ll let you know if I get a dog. Or if I find myself under an “obligation” to be reasonable.

Don’t you ever?!

Useful = valuable.

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. For example when setting up a camp near an old river bed, I need some rocks to surround the fire, there are thousands of rocks laying around. So I use some. They are useful, they are not any more valuable than the thousands of others I didn’t use. Equally many things are considered valuable which are not terribly useful.

Everything is potentially useful because it is an integral part of reality.

Also, even if a tool is valuable that does not make its use obligatory.

That doesn’t detract from its intrinsic value.

Morality is based on reason not emotion.

Ok, but that doesn’t make reason obligatory.

If reason is not obligatory there is no reason for you to be reasonable! So why are you attempting to be so?!

By the Golden Rule and the principle of equality.

Could you explain please? I’m aware of both of these but know of know way to justify an inalienable right to life on this basis.

Do you accept them? If so you must believe they have a rational basis - unless you are choosing to be unreasonable!

 

[Candide_West]

The fact that when people are starving they leave everything to animal charities in their wills is significant… (Sorry for the delay. Sometimes I lose track of the threads I’ve posted to).

No worries, I lose track sometimes too.

*If they tortured you you might do so!

Irrelevant and frankly silly. If my family tortured me I still wouldn’t “choose” to stop loving them. But you’re right I probably would cease to love them.

The point is, as I’m sure you are well aware, something doesn’t have to be a choice to be rational, nor is it necessarily irrational if it’s not a choice.*

Incidentally is this getting us any closer to a justification for humans and other species having an inalienable right to life? That’s what I’m looking for on this thread really. All this talk about rationality is fine but it doesn’t seem relevant.

*Because reasons become habits!

? So you think men start off having to reason themselves out of abusing their children but later it just becomes a habit? As I said, I think I have a little more faith in humans than you do.

*It’s not a question of extent but intent! Either your intentions always have physical causes or they don’t…

As I said, I’m not wanting to go off down a free will rabbit hole here. If you have an justification for an inalienable right to life which is dependent on free will then please present it. If not, then this is off topic.*

*Not if you accept the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils.

So what does having an inalienable right to life mean to you then?*

*No. Plant life shouldn’t be destroyed wantonly.

Ok, but in your opinion does plant life have an inalienable right to life? Or just animals? Also does this extend down to microbial life as well?*

*On a **health **preference. It is the lesser of two evils.

So in your view it’s a lesser evil to kill a creature with an inalienable right to life than to suffer some minor health concerns or find an alternate healthy diet.*

Again I have to ask what an inalienable right to life means to you? It doesn’t sound like it means much since it clearly doesn’t prohibit you killing for even quite minor issues or preferences.

*The view that its legitimacy is based on necessity is accepted by most people because it is reasonable. All morality has a rational basis.

Same with burning “witches” then, that was accepted by most people as necessary and reasonable at the time too.

*Don’t you ever?!

Nope, as I said I use reason because it’s a useful and effective tool. I find no obligations to do so.

*Everything is potentially useful because it is an integral part of reality.

So from your previous statement, everything must be valuable. But so what? Is this part of your justification of why humans have an inalienable right to life?*

*That doesn’t detract from its intrinsic value.

And it STILL doesn’t mean it’s obligatory.

If reason is not obligatory there is no reason for you to be reasonable! So why are you attempting to be so?!

? I already explained this. I use reason because I find it to be a useful and reliable tool. That obviously doesn’t make it obligatory.

*Do you accept them? If so you must believe they have a rational basis - unless you are choosing to be unreasonable!

? This seems to be irrelevant. You proposed that the golden rule and the principle of equality justify an inalienable right to life. I’m asking how you think these two provide such a justification. If you provide this then we can talk about whether the arguments you have made hold together. Currently this looks like another rabbit hole.

 

[jochoa]

Hey jochoa,

You could potentially make an argument for something like “if any species has an inalienable right to life then humans do” on that basis. But unless you can establish that other species have an inalienable right to life, then that doesn’t help really.

Could the combination of Moral Superiority and the Food Chain justify an Inalienable Right to Life for the Human Species?

 

[Candide_West]

Could the combination of Moral Superiority and the Food Chain justify an Inalienable Right to Life for the Human Species?

Seems very unlikely, but if you can see a way then by all means, explain.