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

[jochoa]

Ok, once again I fear this is an opposable thumbs style justification. What you have said is essentially “everyone lives forever spiritually, although many people won’t want to, therefore there is an inalienable right to life”. If you are correct and we are all doomed to exist for eternity (a horrifying thought in it’s own right) then that just means that it’s impossible to really kill anyone, it doesn’t mean that humans have an inalienable right to not be killed here on earth.

A few things: First, I do not know what will happen in the after life, however the following is a couple of concepts I consider feasible. Although God will not Kill as punishment, does not rule out Death in Hell. Death can be defined as the moment life no longer has the motivation to use energy. Therefore, a life that feels doomed to exist for eternity, could possibly quit being motivated to live in the afterlife. Second, I agree that this is an opposable thumbs style justification, which is why I prefer to demonstrate that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the Christian God Exists. Last, are we discussing an inalienable right to life or an inalienable right to be killed? Also, I ask you once again:

Why fight so hard for the right to kill?

Regarding the Components of Every Single Action
Please consider my updated and extended understandings.
Every action is extended to include Every Feeling, Thought, and Action of a Person
-The desires of peace/patience, happiness/kindness, energy/motivation, and wisdom/knowledge throughout the body, spirit, thoughts, and will
-The qualities of patience/peace, kindness/happiness, motivation/energy, knowledge/wisdom of the body, spirit, thoughts, and will
I updated my understandings by dropping “towards others and the self” because I think there is a better way of wording it, I am just not certain of the correct wording and it will suffice without it.
You mentioned that any characteristics could be chosen and be loosely related. How would you relate the desires and qualities of height, size, evasiveness, colour, explanatory power, intelligence, and roughness to a single instance of thought?

Righto, out of interest, why did you pick those characteristics?

Initially from natural life experience, I desired peace, happiness, and energy. I wanted myself to experience these all the time, and I wanted my family and friends and relationships to experience these all the the time. I wanted to achieve these in life through love. Through great struggles, I got lucky by coming across Fireproof and did the Love Dare. From doing the Love Dare, I began to understand that there are many situational and relational actions that can all be founded in patience and kindness. After becoming good at being patient and kind, I began to become fatigued because I was still heavily conditional. Once I became fatigued with being conditionally patient and kind, I experienced more struggles. I was told by family members to grow closer to Jesus. One member in particular said, “Just wake up and say, ‘Lord, let it be your will and not mine.’ Then go and do patience and kindness.” Sure enough, upon following through with the suggestion, I had such an energetic, peaceful, and happy day. I felt in control of my energy, and it felt like a day-lasting adrenaline rush. That is when I heavily began studying the Greatest Commandments. After more struggles in trying to love God above everybody else, I came to the realization that I can be Patient and Kind for God, while being Patient and Kind towards God, Others and Myself. After gaining self-control in patience and kindness for God, I began wanting to share the means to peace, happiness, and energy & experience greater personal levels of peace, happiness, and energy. It was at this point that I learned that wisdom is the graceful statement of knowledge. I learned that wisdom is necessary to share knowledge. I also began to learn the difference between my body, spirit, thoughts, and will. I learned that my body can tell my mind what it feels, whereas my mind can tell my body what it thinks and my will is a combination of the two.

Regarding the Faith of Existence

I have no practical option but to work under the assumption that I exist and my perceptions of reality conform roughly to reality.

This is almost fully my point. You have no option but to have faith that you exist. Therefore, you have to have faith in existence.

Thoughts?

 

[Candide_West]

Irrational questions need no reply.

Irrelevant, I asked no irrational questions. Indeed in the text this was written in reply to I asked no questions at all. However, hopefully you now understand more fully the involuntary nature of emotions.

*Do you ever commit yourself?

Yes.

*Do you ever commit yourself?

Still yes.*

Incidentally, since I keep answering all of the questions you ask me, I’m really hoping that this time you’ll do me the courtesy of answering mine as well. It would be much appreciated.

*I see. We commit crimes for no reason…

What a strange statement. I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with you here, people usually have reasons for their actions. The question is whether those reasons are adequate.

*The fact remains that reasons become habits.

And the fact remains that this is not the reason that most people don’t commit crimes. If it were then the world would be a vastly more unpleasant place.

*Low in your opinion…

No, in yours. You have on this thread stated that it’s a lesser evil to kill millions of creatures which bear an inalienable right to life than to endure a slight smell. I can only conclude that to you a right to life is as close to nil value as makes no difference.*

*Do you ever commit yourself?

Still yes.*

Just in case you feel inclined to answer this time. I’ll ask again - is it an official catholic view or your personal belief that all living things have an inalienable right to life?

*It’s pointless asking you whether you kill creatures unnecessarily, let alone for any reason whatsoever…

Depends what you mean by “unnecessarily” if it includes “unintentionally” then obviously the answer is yes, as indeed it is for everyone. If you mean “deliberately and for no reason” then the answer is no.

But to swing back to the point again, just in case you feel like replying to my point, could you confirm if:

“as I said an “inalienable right to life” must be more or less worthless to you. As clearly its a “lesser evil” to kill millions of creatures with an inalienable right to life than to endure a little bit of smell.”

*Ever hear of a principle?

Yes.

But again to head back to the topic of conversation could you confirm if:

“you’re saying that even when you’ve killed a creature it still has an inalienable right to life? If it is not lost in the killing process then could you explain how a dead creature retains its “inalienable” right to life please?”

*Can you explain why killing is always justified? Or why nothing is ever justified

Er no because I disagree with both those points.*

Now if again if it’d be ok, an answer to one of my questions would be much appreciated. You said that there are**“objective criteria for determining whether killing is justified”. So please could you state what these are and if you have one a source.*

*But you feel no obligation to use your power of reason…

Exactly, well done. I use reason because it is a useful tool, just like I use my car because it’s a useful tool, I use science because it’s a useful tool… Etc. Etc. Glad we’ve got this cleared up.*

*Everything seems to be amoral as far as you are concerned!

Every THING. That’s things as in objects or tools, yes, that’s correct. Tools are unable to be moral or immoral, they are Amoral. People can be moral or immoral, a persons actions can be moral or immoral, a person can use a tool for an action which is moral or immoral, a tool itself cannot be moral or immoral.*

*Who are “we”?

Humans.

*Your contortions merely reveal your inability to evade or admit the fact that it is unreasonable not to reason and that anyone who believes he is not obliged to be reasonable needs to see a psychiatrist…

Silliness TR. Once again a tool being useful does not make it obligatory. The way you use the term makes it all but meaningless. After all it would mean we are obliged to use maths, science, cars, hammers, reason, nail clippers and every other tool we ever use.*

*Just like everything else whatsoever!

Like every object / tool is amoral. That’s correct. Well done.

*Just like everything else - in your nebulous opinion!

If it would help I’m sure I can find you some online sources about how to form justifications. I gave Jochoa a simple example already. Let me know if you’d like me to.*

*So, once again - Are there any rights at all, if not what are they?

Yes, rights exist they are generally enforced by governments. I’m not going to go listing them on here. That would be a waste of space. Just in case you didn’t notice, the question is about whether an INALIENABLE right to life exists and if it does how it is justified.*

*That final remark is more applicable to you than to me - given that you consider that you are not obliged to provide a reasoned justification of anything whatsoever! And that is a fitting conclusion to a futile attempt on my part to have a reasoned discussion.

Well it’s fitting for me in that I don’t have and have never seen a justification for an inalienable right to life. Since I have asked you again and again and you have not provided one, am I to assume that you don’t either?*

As I said a simple “no I don’t have one” is fine. If on the other hand you do have one, then great, please provide it.*

 

[tonyrey]

Well it’s fitting for me in that I don’t have and have never seen a justification for an inalienable right to life.

The immense value of life to which you cling and implicitly affirm by your failure to explain why you do not kill others.

 

[Candide_West]

The immense value of life to which you cling and implicitly affirm by your failure to explain why you do not kill others.

???

Not sure what you are trying to say here TR. We have agreed that we both find life to be valuable.

I do not kill others primarily because I have no desire to do so. Secondly I consider it to be immoral.

Any chance you’re interested in answering any of the questions I posed above?

 

[tonyrey]

The immense value of life to which you cling and implicitly affirm by your failure to explain why you do not kill others.

Not sure what you are trying to say here TR. We have agreed that we both find life to be valuable.

If life is valuable one has a right to life.

I do not kill others primarily because I have no desire to do so.

Secondly I consider it to be immoral.

Why do you consider it to be immoral?

 

[Candide_West]

If life is valuable one has a right to life.

Nope, that’s just silly. Ferraris are valuable, that doesn’t give you a right to a ferrari.

Something being valuable doesn’t mean you have a right to it and it certainly doesn’t mean you have an inalienable right to it.

Why do you consider it to be immoral?

Thanks, TR but I don’t think I’m going to bother answering any more of your questions, since you never bother with answering mine.

 

[GEddie]

Nope, that’s just silly. Ferraris are valuable, that doesn’t give you a right to a ferrari.

Something being valuable doesn’t mean you have a right to it and it certainly doesn’t mean you have an inalienable right to it.

If you don’t possess something that is valuable, obviously you have no right to it. But you already possess life; that gives you a right to it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Candide_West]

A few things: First, I do not know what will happen in the after life, however the following is a couple of concepts I consider feasible. Although God will not Kill as punishment, does not rule out Death in Hell. Death can be defined as the moment life no longer has the motivation to use energy. Therefore, a life that feels doomed to exist for eternity, could possibly quit being motivated to live in the afterlife. Second, I agree that this is an opposable thumbs style justification, which is why I prefer to demonstrate that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the Christian God Exists. Last, are we discussing an inalienable right to life or an inalienable right to be killed? Also, I ask you once again:

Apologies, technically I suppose there is a distinction to be drawn between a right to life and a right not to be killed. Although to me the two are more or less synonymous after all, if you are killed then you are no longer alive. To be clear, the subject of my question is how an inalienable right to life is justified.*

*You mentioned that any characteristics could be chosen and be loosely related. How would you relate the desires and qualities of height, size, evasiveness, colour, explanatory power, intelligence, and roughness to a single instance of thought?

Ok, let’s take me thinking about going to get a drink from the fridge.

Height - I know what height the drink is likely to be in the fridge when I get it.

Size - I am likely to decide the size of drink I would like on route

Evasiveness - I may consider evading going to get a drink by asking someone to get it for me. Or deferring getting it until I’m in the kitchen anyway

Colour - usually the packaging on drinks in my fridge are multi coloured. In considering what drink I’d like the packaging colour is likely to spring to mind.

Explanatory power - is likely to come up if I decide I’m going to take the last drink and consider that someone else may later berate me for having taken it. Especially if it was not mine.

Intelligence - I’ll require my intelligence to consider available options, especially if I get to the fridge and find it devoid of drinks, or the one I prefer.

Roughness - always an important factor for extracting items from the fridge as condensation or ice may have formed on the surface of the bottle so consideration would need to be given to grip. Especially where the bottle is glass and a slip could mean smashing.

*Initially from natural life experience, I desired peace, happiness, and energy. I wanted myself to experience these all the time, and I wanted my family and friends and relationships to experience these all the the time. I wanted to achieve these in life through love. Through great struggles, I got lucky by coming across Fireproof and did the Love Dare. From doing the Love Dare, I began to understand that there are many situational and relational actions that can all be founded in patience and kindness. After becoming good at being patient and kind, I began to become fatigued because I was still heavily conditional. Once I became fatigued with being conditionally patient and kind, I experienced more struggles. I was told by family members to grow closer to Jesus. One member in particular said, “Just wake up and say, ‘Lord, let it be your will and not mine.’ Then go and do patience and kindness.” Sure enough, upon following through with the suggestion, I had such an energetic, peaceful, and happy day. I felt in control of my energy, and it felt like a day-lasting adrenaline rush. That is when I heavily began studying the Greatest Commandments. After more struggles in trying to love God above everybody else, I came to the realization that I can be Patient and Kind for God, while being Patient and Kind towards God, Others and Myself. After gaining self-control in patience and kindness for God, I began wanting to share the means to peace, happiness, and energy & experience greater personal levels of peace, happiness, and energy. It was at this point that I learned that wisdom is the graceful statement of knowledge. I learned that wisdom is necessary to share knowledge. I also began to learn the difference between my body, spirit, thoughts, and will. I learned that my body can tell my mind what it feels, whereas my mind can tell my body what it thinks and my will is a combination of the two.

Interesting, thanks.

*Regarding the Faith of Existence
This is almost fully my point. You have no option but to have faith that you exist. Therefore, you have to have faith in existence.

Thoughts?

I wouldn’t use the term faith in this context. The reason being that the term faith then loses all meaning. After all if we use the term in this way we lose the distinction between “know that X is true”, “observe that X is true” and “have faith that X is true”.

For example, if I’m sitting in my car I would say I “know” that my car exists. Because this is the practical every day sense in which we use the word “know”.*By your use of the term above I could only have “faith” that my car exists. If the term “faith” is to mean anything it must be distinct from “things I directly observe”.

Imagine yourself with the police having witnessed a murder.*

Police: “who killed her?”

You: “I have faith that it was that guy over there.”

Police: “so you don’t know”

You: “No, I don’t know anything, but I am strong in faith that it was that chap”.

Police: “why?”

…

 

[jochoa]

To Candide West, great points my friend! I am really enjoying the discussion!

Apologies, technically I suppose there is a distinction to be drawn between a right to life and a right not to be killed. Although to me the two are more or less synonymous after all, if you are killed then you are no longer alive. To be clear, the subject of my question is how an inalienable right to life is justified.

I agree that they are similar based on the definitions of death of human experience. However, given the assumption of the Christian God, the inalienable right to life is justified based on the afterlife. Which draws you back to the necessity of a proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the Existence of the Christian God…OR a better understanding of “Inalienable Right to Life.”

Ok, let’s take me thinking about going to get a drink from the fridge.

Decent example, however, please consider the following points:
I am confident you used the characteristics of height, size, colour and roughness as characteristics of the objects of thought, and not characteristics of the thought itself. I am also confident that since a thought is immaterial, it does not have a measurable height, nor measurable texture, and its size is not quantifiable.
And the characteristics of explanatory power and intelligence is respectively equated with wisdom and knowledge.

I wouldn’t use the term faith in this context. The reason being that the term faith then loses all meaning. After all if we use the term in this way we lose the distinction between “know that X is true”, “observe that X is true” and “have faith that X is true”.

Please consider the following:
Over the course of our discussion, you have stated two times: “perhaps I am being dense.” Your rejection of faith being the same as living under the assumption of existence is an indication of your unwillingness to see different perspectives. Faith is the complete trust in something that cannot be proven. This is well aligned with the use of “existing under an assumption.”
Although your application is valid, it does not take into consideration circular reasoning.
Example: God says, “You must love.” On the surface, this is incorrect for you do not have to love. However, when you consider circular reasoning, this is valid. Circular Reasoning: If you want acceptance into God’s Kingdom, then you must love.
Applying this to the Faith of Existence
Circular Reasoning: Since I must operate with faith that I exist because “I think, therefore I am” and I must operate with the faith that others exist because “others freely think, therefore they are,” I can operate in the circular reasoning that what is observed by me of others and my being is known.

From further understandings gained throughout the course of our discussion, please consider the following explanation regarding an Inalienable Right to Life.
Inalienable is unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
Recognize that the Right is Inalienable, not the Life. It is an “Inalienable Right,” not an “Inalienable Life.”
The difference is the possessor. The person is the possessor of life, in that the life belongs to the person, and the person can determine what will be done with the life.
The authority is the possessor of the right, in that the right belongs to the authority and is given to the person, and the authority can determine what will be done with the right. If the authority(possessor of the right) determines that it/he/she will not take away or give away the right, then the Right is Inalienable. However, if the authority determines that it/he/she subjects the right to a set of conditions, then the Right is not Inalienable. Therefore, the Inalienability of a Right is subjective and dependent on the will of who claims possession of the right granted.

Thoughts?

 

[Candide_West]

Hey, sorry folks but it’s going to be a while before I can reply properly as I’m off on holiday in an hour. Have a good few weeks and take care.

Candide

 

[tonyrey]

• If life is valuable one has a right to life.*

It’s highly significant that you put persons in the same category as vehicles… :

I do not kill others primarily because I have no desire to do so.

Secondly I consider it to be immoral.

             * Why do you consider it to be immoral?*

Thanks, TR but I don’t think I’m going to bother answering any more of your questions, since you never bother with answering mine.

Never?! It’s highly significant that you evade that question but enjoy your holiday nevertheless - or should I say “more than ever”?

 

[jochoa]

Hey, sorry folks but it’s going to be a while before I can reply properly as I’m off on holiday in an hour. Have a good few weeks and take care.

Candide

May your time off be a blast, and may you also be safe in your journeys!

 

[tonyrey]

It’s highly significant that you evade that question but enjoy your holiday nevertheless - or should I say “more than ever”?

I don’t mean of course “enjoy your holiday in spite of evading…”!

 

[IrishRush]

Wow, great responses! Thanks everyone.

Super liked it

This is the next question/argument. I want an answer from Catholic view.

According to the doctrine of Catholic Church, aborted and miscarried babies, and those that died before they were baptized burn in hell for all eternity; or, as a later amendement states, spend considerable time in purgatory.

So how is that for arguing for the right not to be killed?

We believe in a God that will torment the majority of his supposeldy beloved children in hell for all eternity. And we dare talk about the right not to be killed?!

Please enlighten me.

Never have I been taught that we believe in “a God that will torment the majority of his supposeldy beloved children in hell for all eternity.” I don’t know how or where you were catechized but you were done a great disservice! Here is a quote taken from the Vatican’s website:
"Limbo has never been defined as church dogma and is not mentioned in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states simply that unbaptized infants are entrusted to God’s mercy."
I believe you have been grossly misinformed and am horrified by your statement.
Please show me documentation stating that we believe that God torments babies, miscarried, aborted or dying without being baptized, or consigns them to burn in hell for all eternity. And if you plan to quote St. Augustine, please know that his view was overidden in the 13th century. See the following web page for the entire article. I pray that you read it so that your ignorance of this issue can be repaired and you will no longer feel the need to share this misinformation about our faith:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

 

[Candide_West]

It’s highly significant that you put persons in the same category as vehicles…

No, not really. It was just a nice easy to understand demonstration that something being valuable does not equate to having an inalienable right to that something.

It’s highly significant that you evade that question …

No, not really. As you’ve probably noticed I’ve answered most of your questions, but conversation traditionally is based on a sort of quid pro quo arrangement, one you don’t seem to care to uphold. Bearing in mind my purpose in joining this discussion was to ask a question and you don’t answer any of my questions perhaps you can appreciate the situation is therefore futile to me.

But if you wish to talk about evading questions, then here’s a set you’ve evaded to date:

1.) “Is an inalienable right to life justified, if so how?”

(if you’re going to pick just one to answer please make it this one, it’s really the question I joined this thread seeking to answer).

2.) Could you please present these “objective criteria for determining whether killing is justified”? Which you stated exist.

3.) Do you believe that even when you’ve killed a creature it still has an inalienable right to life? If it is not lost in the killing process then could you explain how a dead creature retains its “inalienable” right to life please?

4.) Is it an official catholic view or your personal belief that all living things have an inalienable right to life?

5.) Is it in your view a*“lesser evil” to kill millions of creatures with an inalienable right to life than to endure a little bit of smell?*

 

[tonyrey]

It’s highly significant that you put persons in the same category as vehicles…

No, not really. It was just a nice easy to understand demonstration that something being valuable does not equate to having an inalienable right to that something.
Vehicles have an instrumental value whereas persons have a moral value.

It’s highly significant that you evade that questio

n …
No, not really. As you’ve probably noticed I’ve answered most of your questions, but conversation traditionally is based on a sort of quid pro quo arrangement, one you don’t seem to care to uphold. Bearing in mind my purpose in joining this discussion was to ask a question and you don’t answer any of my questions perhaps you can appreciate the situation is therefore futile to me.

It is clearly false to state that I don’t answer any of my questions. I have answered your questions but you reject my answers without giving a valid reason for doing so.

But if you wish to talk about evading questions, then here’s a set you’ve evaded to date:

1.) “Is an inalienable right to life justified, if so how?”

(if you’re going to pick just one to answer please make it this one, it’s really the question I joined this thread seeking to answer).

An individual’s inalienable right to life justified because it is irreplaceable and immensely valuable on account of all the opportunities it offers - including your opportunity to deny that you have an inalienable right to life…

2.) Could you please present these “objective criteria for determining whether killing is justified”? Which you stated exist.

The objective criterion for determining whether killing is justified is whether it is the lesser or least evil of all the possible courses of action.

3.) Do you believe that even when you’ve killed a creature it still has an inalienable right to life?

That is an absurd question.

If it is not lost in the killing process then could you explain how a dead creature retains its “inalienable” right to life please?

n/a

4.) Is it an official catholic view or your personal belief that all living things have an inalienable right to life?

That question is irrelevant to the issue at stake.

5.) Is it in your view a*“lesser evil” to kill millions of creatures with an inalienable right to life than to endure a little bit of smell?*

Another absurd question.

Are you still going to evade my question?

 

[maryh10000]

It might help to define our terms:

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inalienable

An inalienable is one that cannot be sold or transferred to someone else. Sometimes people make a distinction between inalienable and unalienable. They both refer to something that cannot be sold or transferred, but unalienable has in the past (and maybe still?) referred to something that couldn’t be sold or transferred by anyone, even the owner, and inalienable has meant something that couldn’t be sold or transferred without the consent of the owner.

Either way, the American legal system, at least, has always recognized that the unalienable rights of life and liberty could be forfeited under certain circumstances.

I’m not arguing anything at the moment. It’s just that it seems to me like some of you are talking about absolute rights and some of you are talking about in- or un- alienable rights.

 

[tonyrey]

It might help to define our terms:

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inalienable

An inalienable is one that cannot be sold or transferred to someone else. Sometimes people make a distinction between inalienable and unalienable. They both refer to something that cannot be sold or transferred, but unalienable has in the past (and maybe still?) referred to something that couldn’t be sold or transferred by anyone, even the owner, and inalienable has meant something that couldn’t be sold or transferred without the consent of the owner.

Either way, the American legal system, at least, has always recognized that the unalienable rights of life and liberty could be forfeited under certain circumstances.

I’m not arguing anything at the moment. It’s just that it seems to me like some of you are talking about absolute rights and some of you are talking about in- or un- alienable rights.

A good point, Mary. Welcome to the forum!

 

[Candide_West]

*Vehicles have an instrumental value whereas persons have a moral value.

? I’m afraid I’m not sure what you are aiming at here. I’ve made my point that something being valuable doesn’t give you an inalienable right to that something (whether it be car, jewellery, time, health, life etc).

If you wish to make some logical connection between measurements of value and inalienable rights then please do so. If not then why do you keep writing about value?

It is clearly false to state that I don’t answer any of my questions. I have answered your questions but you reject my answers without giving a valid reason for doing so.

Not true. I stated that you weren’t answering any of my questions because in the preceding posts you had not even attempted to answer the questions I asked.*

The only one of your answers I have rejected is your answer to my original question and for that I provided a reason. To be clear I am looking for a justification, a justification is more than just two unrelated statements with the word “therefore” or “because” between them.

So “humans have an inalienable right to life “because” life is valuable” is not a justification.

Nor is “humans have an inalienable right to life “because” They have opposable thumbs”.

Clear?

*An individual’s inalienable right to life justified because it is irreplaceable and immensely valuable on account of all the opportunities it offers - including your opportunity to deny that you have an inalienable right to life…

Which is precisely what I was just writing about. If you wish to make a justification based on life being valuable then great, I’m happy to accept life being valuable as an assumption. But you have to provide some logic linking value to inalienable rights to life, not just the word “because”.

*The objective criterion for determining whether killing is justified is whether it is the lesser or least evil of all the possible courses of action.

And what is the criteria for determining the lesser or least evil of all possible courses of action? Obviously you have to know that for your criteria to be usable.

*That is an absurd question.

In fact it isn’t. To remind you, you said “we are justified in killing if we believe it is essential.”

Then when I queried, by saying that the right isn’t very inalienable if it is lost because someone believes it essential and therefore kills. And you replied that “it is not lost at all”.

I can only conclude that you intended this to mean that a creatures right to life is not lost when it is killed. This seems illogical to me, hence why I’m asking if you believe a creature retains it’s right to life when dead. If not then what are the above statements intended to mean?*

*That question is irrelevant to the issue at stake.

Not to me, I would like to understand if it’s your own position or the official catholic position because I’d like to understand the context of the discussion. Besides which why not answer the question? You’ve spent vastly more words and effort on not answering it than it would have taken to simply answer the question.*

*Another absurd question.

No, it is not. You have stated that you believe ALL living things to have an inalienable right to life. I strongly suspect that you have chosen to kill many many living things in your life with very low level justifications. Ie disinfecting the toilet because it’s got a bit smelly.*

If you consider that the living things you are killing have an inalienable right to life then either a). disinfecting the toilet is immoral or b). it is a “lesser evil” to kill millions of living things with an inalienable right to life than to put up with the smell.*

a). Means that you aren’t too worried about complying with your own morality. b). Means that an “inalienable right to life” is of virtually zero value to you. I’m trying to determine which is true.*

If I’ve missed something and the above are not exhaustive then please enlighten me.

*Are you still going to evade my question?

So your question was, why do I consider murder immoral? Well the answer is pretty simple really, as we’ve discussed previously, my morality is based on practicable objective morality. That is the common things which virtually all people do and don’t want to happen to them.*

For example, people like happiness so happiness is good, therefore causing happiness is good hence moral. People don’t like suffering so suffering is bad, therefore causing suffering is bad hence immoral.

I’m sure you can already see the answer coming now - people don’t like getting murdered, so getting murdered is bad. Therefore doing murder is bad hence immoral.

 

[domandcarols]