The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[RDKirk]

We can desire anything including things which are not really good for us. However, we merely want such things and do not necessarily need them. The things that we need as human beings are real goods. To keep us on the OP of this thread, "life" is a real human need. As a real human need, we have a right to it. Others are obligated to respect that right.

You haven't explained why "need" equals "right."

What does "I have a right to it" mean, and what makes your definition of "need = right" more valid than someone else's definition of "want = right?" Where is the argument proving your proposition?

And sez who? If I fall overboard in the middle of the ocean, does the water oblige my need to breath?

 

[durangodawood]

We need food. So this creates a positive claim on other people to provide us with food because having food is a right?

This really cuts against the contemporary "conservative" notion of only negative-rights being legit.

 

[o_mlly]

You haven't explained why "need" equals "right."

What does "I have a right to it" mean, and what makes your definition of "need = right" more valid than someone else's definition of "want = right?" Where is the argument proving your proposition?

And sez who? If I fall overboard in the middle of the ocean, does the water oblige my need to breath?

Limiting the exchange as it relates to the OP, do you deny that every human being has a right to their own life?

 

[o_mlly]

We need food. So this creates a positive claim on other people to provide us with food because having food is a right?

This really cuts against the contemporary "conservative" notion of only negative-rights being legit.

Yes.

Please keep the exchange related to the OP. Do you deny that every human being has a natural right to their own life?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes.

Please keep the exchange related to the OP. Do you deny that every human being has a natural right to their own life?

Not sure.

As a positive right to your life, I'd say no, other people are not obliged to keep you alive no matter what.

if you re-phrase it as a negative right like "we have the right to be free from other people taking our life" (or something similar but more elegant), then yes, we should have that right.

 

[o_mlly]

if you re-phrase it as a negative right like "we have the right to be free from other people taking our life" (or something similar but more elegant), then yes, we should have that right.

Close enough. Do we agree that Premise 1, 2 and 3 are valid?

1. All have a right to their own life.
2. All rights imply a reciprocal obligation on others to respect that right.
3. One's right to one's own life is absolute, iff that one respects the rights of others.
4. One who respects the other's right to life is innocent.
   
5. All acts that preserve or protect innocent life are objectively good acts.
6. All acts that violate or endanger innocent life are objectively evil acts.

 

[durangodawood]

Close enough. Do we agree that Premise 1, 2 and 3 are valid?

1. All have a right to their own life.
2. All rights imply a reciprocal obligation on others to respect that right.
3. One's right to one's own life is absolute, iff that one respects the rights of others.
4. One who respects the other's right to life is innocent.
   
5. All acts that preserve or protect innocent life are objectively good acts.
6. All acts that violate or endanger innocent life are objectively evil acts.

1. Yes, but a right is just a thing we collectively decide to respect. Its not any absolute reality. Thats why I say we "should" have it. Its my strong opinion, shared by the collective hopefully. Nothing more.
2. Yes.
3. Not absolute as I noted above.
4. Okay
5. Not objectively good. As I noted above, rights are collective expressions about how we ought to live. They dont exist "out there" in some demonstrable way. "Collectively recognized as good" is how I'd put it.
6. Same as 5 except for "evil."

All that may be close enough to get me on board with your main argument. Not sure.

 

[RDKirk]

Limiting the exchange as it relates to the OP, do you deny that every human being has a right to their own life?

I don't think "rights" objectively exist. What we call "rights" are the privileges of power. We have a "right" to whatever we (or a patron) has the power to enforce. You can claim you have a right, but if you don't have someone on your side with sufficient power to enforce it, or you can't enforce it yourself...you really have nothing.

I'd want to see some objective evidence of an objective right. Does nature oblige in any way?

If we state that God gives us a right to life, then that's still not a right...it's a privilege granted by One who has the power to enforce it...or not...by His will.

 

[Bradskii]

Is that you, Yoda. If A = B then B = A.

Let A equal 'That which I desire'.
Let B equal 'Good'.

IF A equals X, Then X equals B (by definition). So A equals B.

That's a given. We don't need to know what X is. It can literally be anything. But, if we reverse it and say:

If X equals B...

...whoa, hang on. I need to know what X is before I can proceed. I may not agree with you.

In other words, whatever I desire (X) is always, by my definition, good. You might disagree. But the equation can be written and is always correct. But if we start with X then you can't write the equation until we agree if X is good or not.

This assumes that, for example, maintaining my svelte figure is the desire rather than having an extra slice of chocolate cake.

 

[o_mlly]

1. Yes, but a right is just a thing we collectively decide to respect. Its not any absolute reality. Thats why I say we "should" have it. Its my strong opinion, shared by the collective hopefully. Nothing more.
2. Yes.
3. Not absolute as I noted above.
4. Okay
5. Not objectively good. As I noted above, rights are collective expressions about how we ought to live. They dont exist "out there" in some demonstrable way. "Collectively recognized as good" is how I'd put it.
6. Same as 5 except for "evil."

All that may be close enough to get me on board with your main argument. Not sure.

Agreeing what the source of the the human right to life is not important to this thread. Acknowledging that the right to life is a natural right, ie., every person, in every place at every time possesses the right. It is an existential right as you acknowledge here:

The human desire to live is typically natural, as you note.

 

[o_mlly]

Let A equal 'That which I desire'.
Let B equal 'Good'.

IF A equals X, Then X equals B (by definition). So A equals B.

That's a given. We don't need to know what X is. It can literally be anything. But, if we reverse it and say:

If X equals B...

...whoa, hang on. I need to know what X is before I can proceed. I may not agree with you.

In other words, whatever I desire (X) is always, by my definition, good. You might disagree. But the equation can be written and is always correct. But if we start with X then you can't write the equation until we agree if X is good or not.

This assumes that, for example, maintaining my svelte figure is the desire rather than having an extra slice of chocolate cake.

? You lost me ... but I have a strange desire to have another piece of chocolate cake.

 

[RDKirk]

Agreeing what the source of the the human right to life is not important to this thread. Acknowledging that the right to life is a natural right, ie., every person, in every place at every time possesses the right. It is an existential right as you acknowledge here:

I do not acknowledge the existence of a "natural right." In what way is any "right" acknowledged by nature?

 

[durangodawood]

Agreeing what the source of the the human right to life is not important to this thread. Acknowledging that the right to life is a natural right, ie., every person, in every place at every time possesses the right. It is an existential right as you acknowledge here:

Not sure what makes a right "existential". I did note that I think rights are a collective recognition of values, and are a social expression. So people dont "possess" them per se. They are a social recognition of natural human traits.

I would prefer to think we possess rights. It sounds appealing. But I cant find rights in the world anywhere other than in decisions made socially, typically enshrined in key documents.

 

[o_mlly]

Not sure what makes a right "existential". I did note that I think rights are a collective recognition of values, and are a social expression. So people dont "possess" them per se. They are a social recognition of natural human traits.

I would prefer to think we possess rights. It sounds appealing. But I cant find rights in the world anywhere other than in decisions made socially, typically enshrined in key documents.

As gravity is a natural law, humans have a natural right to life. I may call the natural lawgiver God, you may call the law a brute fact. For this thread, as I wrote, agreeing on the source of all that is natural is not important to the argument. Only that the right exists as a natural right. Which you have done.

 

[RDKirk]

As gravity is a natural law, humans have a natural right to life.

Absolutely not. Gravity can be demonstrated as an objective force of nature. You can't do that with a "right to life."

Drop a man into a river swarming with crocodiles...where is his right to life demonstrated in nature? Drop him into the middle of the ocean...where is his right to life demonstrated in nature?
If a tsunami kills everyone on a Pacific island, where was their right to life respected by or even acknowledged by nature?

There is no such thing as a natural right to life.

 

[durangodawood]

As gravity is a natural law, humans have a natural right to life. I may call the natural lawgiver God, you may call the law a brute fact. For this thread, as I wrote, agreeing on the source of all that is natural is not important to the argument. Only that the right exists as a natural right. Which you have done.

I have not. I already told you, I dont believe natural facts force natural rights. Rights are product of human culture, and by no means ubiquitous. Maybe they are natural in that everything humans do is "natural", strictly speaking. I doubt that what you mean tho.

 

[Bradskii]

As gravity is a natural law, humans have a natural right to life. I may call the natural lawgiver God, you may call the law a brute fact. For this thread, as I wrote, agreeing on the source of all that is natural is not important to the argument. Only that the right exists as a natural right. Which you have done.

Do we have a right to kill something in order to survive? I guess we do. One might say it's a 'natural right'. A 'brute fact'. But that gives us a problem in that the chicken or the pig has a right to life as well. Does ours trump the pig's because we're further up the food chain? We might say yes. The pig wouldn't.

Does that right also allow a lion, for example, to kill to survive? Of course. It can't live without killing something. So does the lion's right trump the antelope's? I guess so. But the antelope would disagree.

What if we go back far enough in our evolutionary past (I know you don't believe this but the point stands) before we were human. Would it be wrong for a creature to kill a small mammal to survive? I guess so. But the small mammal would disagree.

So at what point on the continuum as that small mammal evolved to us did our right to life trump all others?

Your right to life is only an objective fact if you believe it was granted to us. Otherwise it's no more than 'I'm top of the food chain and smarter than you. Therefore my right trumps yours'.

 

[o_mlly]

Absolutely not. Gravity can be demonstrated as an objective force of nature. You can't do that with a "right to life."

Drop a man into a river swarming with crocodiles...where is his right to life demonstrated in nature? Drop him into the middle of the ocean...where is his right to life demonstrated in nature?
If a tsunami kills everyone on a Pacific island, where was their right to life respected by or even acknowledged by nature?

There is no such thing as a natural right to life.

If you believe that no one has a natural (God given) right to life just as objects have a natural attraction ie. gravity (God given natural law), to each other then do you also believe that humans may preemptively kill other human beings without antecedent conditions? If not, why not?

 

[o_mlly]

I have not. I already told you, I dont believe natural facts force natural rights. Rights are product of human culture, and by no means ubiquitous. Maybe they are natural in that everything humans do is "natural", strictly speaking. I doubt that what you mean tho.

If there is no natural right to life then the Nazis, in their culture, acted morally in killing the undesirables. Is that your position?

 

[o_mlly]

Do we have a right to kill something in order to survive? I guess we do. One might say it's a 'natural right'. A 'brute fact'. But that gives us a problem in that the chicken or the pig has a right to life as well. Does ours trump the pig's because we're further up the food chain? We might say yes. The pig wouldn't.

Does that right also allow a lion, for example, to kill to survive? Of course. It can't live without killing something. So does the lion's right trump the antelope's? I guess so. But the antelope would disagree.

What if we go back far enough in our evolutionary past (I know you don't believe this but the point stands) before we were human. Would it be wrong for a creature to kill a small mammal to survive? I guess so. But the small mammal would disagree.

So at what point on the continuum as that small mammal evolved to us did our right to life trump all others?

Your right to life is only an objective fact if you believe it was granted to us. Otherwise it's no more than 'I'm top of the food chain and smarter than you. Therefore my right trumps yours'

No one has argued that animals have a right to life.