Page 38 of 40 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 392

Thread: The right to die?

  1. #371
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,126
    Amen (Given)
    5162
    Amen (Received)
    22727
    Quote Originally Posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    Are you referring to the poisoned flavor aid incident at Jonestown?
    not specifically. cults in general will convince you to do things that you willingly do and consent to, that are injust and take advantage of the members, and even while and after it happens they still think they did the right thing and do not revoke consent. They consent to being ripped off willingly, yet it is objectively injust and wrong. Like giving all of their property to the cult even to killing themselves for the cult.

  2. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  3. #372
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,578
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1074
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    (Carry will probably point out there are another half dozen possibilities so I'll save him the trouble)
    I'm not here anymore.

  4. #373
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,578
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1074
    Quote Originally Posted by Sea of red View Post
    You sound ridiculous.

    Laws prohibiting what you can do to another member of society exist precisely because your neighbor has rights - one of which is the protection against bodily harm.
    There is no such right. This is what I mean by nonsensical claims. You don't have a right to not be bodily harmed. It's absurd on the face of it. We don't want to be harmed, and we attempt to codify what will happen to someone who does harm us. Protection against harm isn't a mandate, though, even if it were possible to achieve. Would you tell a snake that bites you that it violated your rights? Of course not.
    I'm not here anymore.

  5. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  6. #374
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,578
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1074
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Yeah I remember when gay marriage was being discussed on tweb. The liberals all said:

    "no, gay marriage won't lead to normalizing polygamy or pedophilia. That is a fallacy of the slippery slope argument"

    Slippery meet slope.



    Attachment 19373
    It's still a fallacy insofar as one doesn't necessitate the next. The arguments behind same-sex marriage (two consenting adults) are easily extended to polygamy (multiple consenting adults). They don't extend at all to pedophilia (children can't legally consent). Legalization of same-sex doesn't mean polygamy will be legalized, though. I'm not particularly in favor of polygamy. There are better ways to solve the 'real' impetus behind it.
    I'm not here anymore.

  7. #375
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,578
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1074
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    I'm pretty sure Xena and I mean the same thing by rights, based on recent discussions. And Xena said in that post of hers (that I was defending) that her position was natural rights, and gave breathing as an example.
    I agree that you and Xena mean the same thing by rights. The divergence is when you talk to Teal or myself who define them differently.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    I don't wish to say anything against your arguing against natural rights (if you wish). I have no problem with such an argument, or participating in such a discussion. I was only trying to point out (probably poorly) that it's not relevant to the particular argument I made, which was in the context of an assumption of natural rights. I should have kept my comments focused on my argument in particular rather than referring to the thread in general. I apologize.
    This is helpful. I think we have another disconnect, though. I don't know if there's a proper term for it, but I think of it as directionality. That is, a right to X doesn't necessarily imply a right to not have Y happen. If you had a right to turn around, that doesn't mean you have a right to not turn around (if that makes sense). I can protect one without the other.

    I use directionality because it brings to mind the focus of the law. Is the focus to preserve a certain thing or to prevent something else? A right to life focuses on preserving life, and therefore involves laws against murder. A right to not be murdered focuses on murder specifically. I can use a right to life to justify a lot of other things. I can't use a right to not be murdered the same way. Even though the end result is the same, the intent and implications are very different.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    So I'm curious then. When Sea Of Red asks, "Do people have a right to end their lives on their own terms?" and "right" means codified statutes, then wouldn't the question just be what are the current statutes? Wouldn't "Do people have a right to" be the same as "Is it legal under codified statutes to"? Where is the 'should' in that question? I'm not trying to be dismissive here; I want to understand your position.
    I think a political theory discussion implicitly involves both what is and what should be. The simple (and boring, as you pointed out ) answer is just 'no'. We don't have codified statutes allowing this action. Far more interesting is deciding on if or how we should change those statutes. I'm actually in favor of changing the laws here. I don't think there's a natural rights 'right to die', but I don't find the arguments in favor of prohibiting the act at all convincing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    I was only suggesting possible common ground for us.


    You might be surprised how much we have in common. I think most of my disagreement with your stances are the footing of natural rights. I can get to similar reasoning with a much stronger footing (imo) that doesn't rely on basic beliefs. It's not that I have anything against basic beliefs, only that I consider them inherently flawed when it comes to any discussion with someone who doesn't share them.
    I'm not here anymore.

  8. #376
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,387
    Amen (Given)
    186
    Amen (Received)
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
    This is helpful. I think we have another disconnect, though. I don't know if there's a proper term for it, but I think of it as directionality. That is, a right to X doesn't necessarily imply a right to not have Y happen. If you had a right to turn around, that doesn't mean you have a right to not turn around (if that makes sense). I can protect one without the other.

    I use directionality because it brings to mind the focus of the law. Is the focus to preserve a certain thing or to prevent something else? A right to life focuses on preserving life, and therefore involves laws against murder. A right to not be murdered focuses on murder specifically. I can use a right to life to justify a lot of other things. I can't use a right to not be murdered the same way. Even though the end result is the same, the intent and implications are very different.
    In my position, universal rights are necessarily negative rights. (I find that positive universal rights lead to contradiction.) Thus a right to do X is the same as an obligation of everyone else to not forcibly prevent you. The right to life is just the right not to be murdered--thus obligation of everyone else not to murder you.

    I think this also answers your objection to Sea of Red, "Would you tell a snake that bites you that it violated your rights?". No because snakes can't understand the concept of obligations. Humans can.

  9. #377
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Abigail View Post
    I agree with this DX, however as a Christian I find myself experiencing an uneasiness about some of the terminology used in articulating these discussions and there definitely needs to be more emphasis on the fact that de legislating does not mean something is suddenly 'right'. No one has a 'right' to take their own life as far a I am concerned. As I Christian I don't think I could spend my time seeking 'rights' for people to do things I believe are wrong. Surely as Christians we should be about our own business - the laws they pass or repeal outside the Church are only of interest to me in as far as I have a say in how I want society to operate and in that capacity I vote with my Christian conscience because I believe that will ensure the best society for all. If the vote goes against me then so be it, I know I have voted for what I believe will ultimately benefit all. My major concern is within the church. If the laws outside come into conflict with my way of life then I suffer as a Christian for my beliefs and am prepared to do that because they are important to me. Just like Christians before us have done.
    The problem is that the word "right" here is equivocal. You are using it in one sense to mean "moral" (right versus wrong) and in other to refer to things we inherently posses not do or not to do. We have the "right" to be completely unpleasant human beings. It is not right to be so.

    How we "want" society to operate does not give us the right to force others, neither is it right.

    And no, delegislating something does not make it moral. In fact, the LP Platform addresses this specifically:

    "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individualís right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.


  10. #378
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    FWIW, I use my government name now.
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.


  11. #379
    tWebber demi-conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,471
    Amen (Given)
    142
    Amen (Received)
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    In my position, universal rights are necessarily negative rights. (I find that positive universal rights lead to contradiction.) Thus a right to do X is the same as an obligation of everyone else to not forcibly prevent you. The right to life is just the right not to be murdered--thus obligation of everyone else not to murder you.
    Yes.

    And so to enforce right means to enforce restriction on liberty on everyone else, and this is done by ruling power/government/state/whatever you call it. More rights --> more restrictions on everyone.

    Vive Liberty!!!
    Last edited by demi-conservative; 11-05-2016 at 01:12 AM.
    Trump is basically "Bruce Wayne pretending to be a foppish retarded billionaire" tier genius, in case nerds need a simpler metaphor.

  12. #380
    tWebber demi-conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,471
    Amen (Given)
    142
    Amen (Received)
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
    You don't have a right to not be bodily harmed. It's absurd on the face of it. We don't want to be harmed, and we attempt to codify what will happen to someone who does harm us. Protection against harm isn't a mandate, though, even if it were possible to achieve.
    "Natural rights" by non-theists is trying to invoke bits and pieces of natural law without talking about natural law
    Trump is basically "Bruce Wayne pretending to be a foppish retarded billionaire" tier genius, in case nerds need a simpler metaphor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •