More Ron Bashing

[Whateverist]

I'm always amazed at how often a heart felt desire to preserve every embryo is carried right along side the sentiment that no new born child has any right to expect, as they develop, access to healthcare, three square meals or an education adequate to prepare them to compete in the work force. Why is the right to mere existence for the unborn so precious that the state should guarantee it over the objection of the parents and yet when it comes to the nurturance necessary for them to grow to live viable lives the state should back off and say that is up to the parents?

[reverendjeremiah]

A) It's a paradox meant to illustrate that you cannot exercise rights that you are not capable of. Were driving to be a right, a blind man certainly would be precluded from such, for example.

...and yet everyone that is alive is perfectly capable of exercising the right to life. How is an unborn child not capable of exercising the right to life? It's living isn't it? Or do you believe life starts at birth?

Im beginning to question your grasp on logic Tiberius. Lets look at what you just said

"...and yet everyone that is alive is perfectly capable of exercising the right to life.".

So someone who is alive is proof that living is a universal and logical right?

You are no moral nihilist tiberius.

---

I'm always amazed at how often a heart felt desire to preserve every embryo is carried right along side the sentiment that no new born child has any right to expect as they develop access to healthcare, three square meals or an education adequate to prepare them to compete in the work force. Why is the right to mere existence for the unborn so precious that the state should guarantee it over the objection of the parents and yet when it comes to the nurturance necessary for them to grow to live viable lives the state should back off and say that is up to the parents?

Thats Tiberius alright. Strangely he has "moral nihilist" and "minarchist" in his profile, yet he opposes some forms of abortion.

So private property is a right, and life is a right, but a woman has no right over her life and property (womb) if a baby is in it.

All of this negative and positive rights talk is nothing more than sophestry and tricks. Its a way of trying to make certain opinions of certain individuals appear as if they were universal. Its a trick to try to force your opinion on other people.

other: "Abortion is immoral because the baby has a right to life."
Me: "Right to life? how the fuck did you come up with that?"
other: "Every baby deserves a right to life."
Me: "When will you get to the proof?"
other: "Its logical. Living is a negative right, therefore not killing is moral."
Me: "And how are they logical?"


Care to answer how they are logical Tiberius?

[Tiberius]

Quite simply, because there are no natural (negative) rights to healthcare, food, or education. All these things are positive rights (i.e. a right that does not exist until it is created by a contract). Negative rights (such as the right to life) cover things that are natural to all people, such as the right to life, free speech, expression, etc.

Or to use Wikipedia's comparison: "positive rights permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction".

[reverendjeremiah]

Quite simply, because there are no natural (negative) rights to healthcare, food, or education. All these things are positive rights (i.e. a right that does not exist until it is created by a contract). Negative rights (such as the right to life) cover things that are natural to all people, such as the right to life, free speech, expression, etc.

Or to use Wikipedia's comparison: "positive rights permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction".

See what I mean. There are no "natural" rights to food or health. But a right to life is "natural" and therefore logical, thus it is inherent, thus the right to life is a universal moral.


So do plants and other animals also have this right to life? Or is the right to life only universally inherent with humans?

By the way, how is eating NOT just as natural of a "right" as living...seeing as one must eat in order to live?

Please explain how living is a natural right, yet eating is a "positive" right. Explain on how someone can sustain their "right to life" without killing to make food.

For someone who claims to be a moral nihilist, you sure do argue morality with words such as "natural", "rights", and "logical".

Its becoming very clear that you are not keen to what nihilism really means. You are clearly a moral universalist, as clear as the sun is in the sky. You are claiming natural and logical arguments fore morality. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of a moral nihilist.

[Whateverist]

Perhaps we can compromise? Keep every embryo alive but require parents who choose not to feed their young to deliver their corpses while they're still fresh to processing plants. There they can be processed into a soylent green like product which can be used to feed the children of poor people who actually want their kids but can't afford to feed them. No one is forced to part with their property to feed anybody, those who can't afford their kids get to do so, and those who never wanted the kids they were forced to bring to term get to be rid of them.

[reverendjeremiah]

Perhaps we can compromise? Keep every embryo alive but require parents who choose not to feed their young to deliver their corpses while they're still fresh to processing plants. There they can be processed into a soylent green like product which can be used to feed the children of poor people who actually want their kids but can't afford to feed them. No one is forced part with their property to feed anybody, those who can't afford their kids get to do so, and those who never wanted the kids they were forced to bring to term get to be rid of them.

LOL...you crack me up.


But i just cant get over Tiberius saying that life is a natural right, but eating is not. How can someone seriously come to such a conclusion? that would be similar to suggesting that gasoline fueled automobiles should be legal, but gasoline should be illegal. What good is one without the other?

I cant help but notice Tiberius removed "moral nihilist" from his profile.

...anyone else notice?

[Whateverist]

But i just cant get over Tiberius saying that life is a natural right, but eating is not. How can someone seriously come to such a conclusion? that would be similar to suggesting that gasoline fueled automobiles should be legal, but gasoline should be illegal. What good is one without the other?

I cant help but notice Tiberius removed "moral nihilist" from his profile.

...anyone else notice?

You are a sharp eyed computer user. (I barely press the right buttons most of the time.) I guess Tiberius has have taken your criticism to heart.

His position seems so Christian. You have a god given right to be born into poverty, suffer and starve. It's kind of like having the god given right to free will just so long as you don't mind frying in hell.

[Tiberius]

Perhaps we can compromise? Keep every embryo alive but require parents who choose not to feed their young to deliver their corpses while they're still fresh to processing plants. There they can be processed into a soylent green like product which can be used to feed the children of poor people who actually want their kids but can't afford to feed them. No one is forced to part with their property to feed anybody, those who can't afford their kids get to do so, and those who never wanted the kids they were forced to bring to term get to be rid of them.

No need to go that far. One can argue that a parent refusing to feed its child is tantamount to child abuse, which again, is a violation of a negative right.

I should point out that "right to food" is a tricky one. There is nothing inherent about humans which gives us a right to food; after all, food is something we need to seek out. However, that doesn't give anyone the right to take another person's food. There are plenty of free sources of food available, if you don't mind living on a vegetarian diet.

---

You are a sharp eyed computer user. (I barely press the right buttons most of the time.) I guess Tiberius has have taken your criticism to heart.

Erm, no. I removed my entire religious view so I could put "Shell B" there instead. I'm still a moral and existential nihilist. I'll add it to my signature.

His position seems so Christian. You have a god given right to be born into poverty, suffer and starve. It's kind of like having the god given right to free will just so long as you don't mind frying in hell.

Nothing Christian about it, and certainly nothing "god given".

[reverendjeremiah]

Erm, no. I removed my entire religious view so I could put "Shell B" there instead. I'm still a moral and existential nihilist. I'll add it to my signature.

A moral nihilist who argues natural and universal morals and rights?

Might as well be a Christian who argues that faith is scientific. You have done nothing more than take words and water their meaning down. There is no leeway with nihilism. It is very cut and dry and cold hard fact. Nihilists dont argue for some spooky mystical "natural right" for morals.....universal moralists argue in that direction...


...but if it makes you feel beter to have the "moral nihilist" tag while spouting arguments for moral universalism then be my guest.

As far as my opinion: Words actually mean something to me.

[Whateverist]

Nothing Christian about it, and certainly nothing "god given".

"God given" here is meant to suggest arbitrary, unsupported and completely fabricated. I reject all moral objectivism. I have no problem with becoming explicit where laws are concerned. You kill someone, we deal with you. We're not necessarily more or less moral than the killer but as a practical matter we're going to do something about that. You want personal liberty but you want to feel safe too.

Me, I want to live in a world that includes more than humans and the biomass that supports us or feeds off us. So as a purely practical matter, I think we should give a financial incentive to any pregnant woman who is willing to have her uterus vacuumed early on. I guess you'd call that social engineering and I'd agree. I just hate to see sloppy social planning where you encourage billions and billions of new humans to be born but give no thought to the resources needed to sustain them or the tradeoff in denigration to the web of life. Here's a Copernican realization for you: we're neither the center of nor reason for that web.