Except before society, neanderthals were born with the right of owning their own life.
No they didn't.. Why would you think that? They were just part of the natural circle of life.. They could've been killed at any time for any reason
Do you think when they were born they instantly thought "I belong to that person over there now"??? No. They were born with the propensity for survival because they were born with the belief (and right) that they own their own life. Yes, shit can happen and people can lose their life, but that doesnt mean that while they had it they didnt have the right of it.
In the natural cycle of life, every living being owns their own life. And it is in their best interest to do whatever they can to make that life last and long as it can, and be as comfortable as they can make it. As a more intelligent species, we evolved to understand that our interactions shouldnt infringe upon another's equal right to their own life. This isnt present in nature because other species are not has intellectual evolved as us. Regardless though, this belief and right to owning your own life has been there well before society came along and made societal rules.
There's a conceptual difference between natural rights and societal rules
yes, and im taking about natural rights. Not societal rules.
Humans are just cells., a living organism.. You can die in a fucking fetus before you are ever born.. Where are those peoples rights?
I agree. Those people lived a short life because someone stole their rights from them. Just because you have rights, doesn't mean someone can't take those rights away from you. And someone taking those rights away from you doesn't change the fact that morally it was wrong for them to do so.
And since you pulled this to abortion, don't misunderstand me. Abortion is a very difficult position because the tiny human cannot live on it's own without the mother. Thus if the mother chooses that she no longer wishes to help this other person survive, that is her right because it is her body and no one has a higher claim to her body then she does. I personally don't consider abortion murder because of this, but I do consider it as a person losing their life. I kinda view it somewhat like you stumble across someone hanging from a cliff begging you to give them a hand- And you walk over there crunching on a apple and say "looks like you are in a rough spot. Sorry I can't help" while the person then falls to their death. Did they murder the person? No, but they could have saved them. Abortion is kinda the same thing. The mother could have saved this little human from dying, but for whatever reason they chose not too. Last thing cause I know what I just said is really going to piss people off- I totally get it. There are very real times when the the mother has a very good reason for not carrying the baby. I get that, and it's totally cool. I am not passing any judgement against those who chose to not help this baby fall to their death, and I will support your right to be able to do that. Just don't expect me to not view the act of abortion as someone just lost their life.... Because they did.
A baby outside of a mothers womb cant survive in its own either though. Just throwing that out there
yup.. and if that happens we as society we have societal rules to protect the babys rights and send the mother to jail. because if the mother doesnt want to take care of the baby, someone else would.
What your describing is strictly ideology.. It is not nature.. Nature is objective and unforgiving.. Animals survive without society on instincts that are natural to them .. They have no rights if a nomadic wanderer murdered a nomadic wanderer of no reason and no society there would be no consequences.. If a disease which is alive just like you takes over your body it can end your life without any thought process.. The removal of life without consequence predates ideology and society.. You have no natural rights.. Rights were invented as an ideological mutual investment
The only way a right to life would exist would be by it being virtually impossible to remove other peoples rights.. Cuz even if there are societal reprimands to a "wrong action" it does not replaced the life that was taken unwarranted.. If you are walking down the street and someone shoots you in the back of the head with no chance to defend yourself you clearly don't have a right to life because there is no possible way of getting that life back
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Lets step back here. Can we define "rights"? According to google
1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
So by whose morals are we talking about here? As example I think it's very possible that you could find two different people would have differing views on what is honorable for a soldier- "More honorable to put the gun down and walk away" vs "More honorable to kill the enemy and save your comrades". So finding a common ground when discussing morality is difficult because it can be almost impossible to agree on a common set of morality.
What I have been asserting to you, is an ideology that I believe is logically sound in which everyone must agree to my set of morality. There is no logical counterargument that could reasonably supersede my assertion. I repeat my ideology it again :
1. You own your own life, and no one has a greater claim to your own life then you do (murder if they do). 2. As a consequence of owning your own life, no one has a greater claim to the outputs of your hard work (theft if they do), nor can require you to do work for them (slavery if they do) 3. As long as your actions do not infringe on another's basic principle rights (in 1 and 2), then you are morally sound in whatever you do.
So getting back to what you were saying... You said Nature has no rights. maybe, but if so then that is just because they are not intelligent enough to have them. Animals have no morality and no sense of just or honorable. Humans though possess this quality, and so because they are intellectually capable of naturally understanding honor, and just, and morals. This understanding makes these basic rights I said in 1-3 above inalienable to all humans born. It is not society that grants these rights in my ideology, but the intelligence of our species which we have evolved with.
Your inventing your own ideology now ( basically john Locke shit) which makes sense but I just don't agree with it .. So are you saying current animals that aren't at our intelligence level don't posses the right to life? Are saying at one point we didn't have a right to life naturally, but once we evolved enough it became part of nature? I just don't think I can agree with it being natural.. I agree with the ideology tho and think it's one to strive for as humans
Your inventing your own ideology now ( basically john Locke shit) which makes sense but I just don't agree with it .. So are you saying current animals that aren't at our intelligence level don't posses the right to life? Are saying at one point we didn't have a right to life naturally, but once we evolved enough it became part of nature? I just don't think I can agree with it being natural.. I agree with the ideology tho and think it's one to strive for as humans
You make an excellent point here. The ideology that I presented (which I am not saying is a 100% original idea) is my best attempt at a common set of morality that everyone should be able to agree too. The ideology does apply to humans only. Once you start trying to apply the same rules to animals, then you venture into the grey area and you will polarize people. You will have people like Bianca makes claims like "Animals life are of a far greater value than any single human" and then you will others claiming "The action of hunting is a necessary evil as it provides substance to prolong my life. My life is of more value than an animals." The majority of people wouldnt fall into the hunter verses PETA side, but generally fall into the "It's cool to kill stupid animals that we dont think are cute - pigs, cows, deer, chicken, fish... But slow down cowboy if you want to kill anything cute, or hugable... fuck you! I mean look at that god damn beaver- He swims on his back and does cute little human things with his paws! awwww"
Getting to the point you were making - It is difficult for me to answer because it is impossible for me to know the intelligence level of early humanoids. Did they have a level of intelligence where this would be applicable? I just don't know - but I do think the level of intelligence that is required where you naturally have these rights is the very moment you have awareness of self. Looking at how apes behave, I would say it's very likely that Apes have this sense of self and as such I think in their societal culture they have the same fundamental rights. If you are not intelligent enough to have a sense of self though, then how is it even possible for you to have this right? It isnt. Your intelligence doesn't allow that right.
Nature has allowed you to evolve with the inteligence of a sense of self, and as such these rights of self ownership are innate.
EYEHATEGOD RUSSIAN CIRCLES MUNICIPAL WASTE COUGH BELL WITCH OLD MAN GLOOM CAVE IN CONAN BEDEMON SAMOTHRACE SAMSARA BLUES EXPERIMENT RADIO MOSCOW ATRIARCH
Comments
Do you think when they were born they instantly thought "I belong to that person over there now"??? No. They were born with the propensity for survival because they were born with the belief (and right) that they own their own life. Yes, shit can happen and people can lose their life, but that doesnt mean that while they had it they didnt have the right of it.
In the natural cycle of life, every living being owns their own life. And it is in their best interest to do whatever they can to make that life last and long as it can, and be as comfortable as they can make it. As a more intelligent species, we evolved to understand that our interactions shouldnt infringe upon another's equal right to their own life. This isnt present in nature because other species are not has intellectual evolved as us. Regardless though, this belief and right to owning your own life has been there well before society came along and made societal rules.
And since you pulled this to abortion, don't misunderstand me. Abortion is a very difficult position because the tiny human cannot live on it's own without the mother. Thus if the mother chooses that she no longer wishes to help this other person survive, that is her right because it is her body and no one has a higher claim to her body then she does. I personally don't consider abortion murder because of this, but I do consider it as a person losing their life. I kinda view it somewhat like you stumble across someone hanging from a cliff begging you to give them a hand- And you walk over there crunching on a apple and say "looks like you are in a rough spot. Sorry I can't help" while the person then falls to their death. Did they murder the person? No, but they could have saved them. Abortion is kinda the same thing. The mother could have saved this little human from dying, but for whatever reason they chose not too. Last thing cause I know what I just said is really going to piss people off- I totally get it. There are very real times when the the mother has a very good reason for not carrying the baby. I get that, and it's totally cool. I am not passing any judgement against those who chose to not help this baby fall to their death, and I will support your right to be able to do that. Just don't expect me to not view the act of abortion as someone just lost their life.... Because they did.
1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.
What I have been asserting to you, is an ideology that I believe is logically sound in which everyone must agree to my set of morality. There is no logical counterargument that could reasonably supersede my assertion. I repeat my ideology it again :
1. You own your own life, and no one has a greater claim to your own life then you do (murder if they do).
2. As a consequence of owning your own life, no one has a greater claim to the outputs of your hard work (theft if they do), nor can require you to do work for them (slavery if they do)
3. As long as your actions do not infringe on another's basic principle rights (in 1 and 2), then you are morally sound in whatever you do.
So getting back to what you were saying... You said Nature has no rights. maybe, but if so then that is just because they are not intelligent enough to have them. Animals have no morality and no sense of just or honorable. Humans though possess this quality, and so because they are intellectually capable of naturally understanding honor, and just, and morals. This understanding makes these basic rights I said in 1-3 above inalienable to all humans born. It is not society that grants these rights in my ideology, but the intelligence of our species which we have evolved with.
Getting to the point you were making - It is difficult for me to answer because it is impossible for me to know the intelligence level of early humanoids. Did they have a level of intelligence where this would be applicable? I just don't know - but I do think the level of intelligence that is required where you naturally have these rights is the very moment you have awareness of self. Looking at how apes behave, I would say it's very likely that Apes have this sense of self and as such I think in their societal culture they have the same fundamental rights. If you are not intelligent enough to have a sense of self though, then how is it even possible for you to have this right? It isnt. Your intelligence doesn't allow that right.
Nature has allowed you to evolve with the inteligence of a sense of self, and as such these rights of self ownership are innate.
EYEHATEGOD
RUSSIAN CIRCLES
MUNICIPAL WASTE
COUGH
BELL WITCH
OLD MAN GLOOM
CAVE IN
CONAN
BEDEMON
SAMOTHRACE
SAMSARA BLUES EXPERIMENT
RADIO MOSCOW
ATRIARCH
AND AUTHOR & PUNISHER SETS ALL DAY \m/
they should do it now, not wait 10 years and have appeals etc
" I have an even better idea. I'm going to place him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death."