A Moral Dilemma?

[henry quirk]

I would like to think my life is my own...

You'd like to but you don't.

simply considering that to be the case makes no difference to anything.

Having a moral claim to one's, and no one else's, life certainly offers, in itself, no practical protections. I don't think, though, the truth of sumthin' is dependent on its utility, its usefulness. There's a black hole at the center of our galaxy. That fact has no obvious utility. And yet that black hole is still there.

I don't know why I care, I just know that I do care

This is a philosophy forum so mebbe it's time you figure out the whys of your life.

if I find anything sad, it's that you seem not to.

You assume becuz I won't recognize creepy-crawlies and lions as persons, that I reject humane treatment of animals. That's a mistake.

[henry quirk]

They are backed by the authority of the state, whose role it is to protect and enforce them. Who or what is going to protect whatever "natural" rights you decide to bestow upon yourself?

You say the conventions are backed by the power of the state. But where do the conventions themselves come from? You might say consensus. But why should there be consensus? We're just animals, morality is just opinion, conscience is just a feeling, so why should we work so hard over the long haul of centuries to move our societies toward messy, chaotic systems where we pretend we have human rights? Our natural state, as animals, is founded on might makes right and the strong rule (and eat) the weak, yes? Why trade off the certainty and simplicity of our natural state for, as I say, messy chaos?

Mebbe there's a utility, a usefulness, to natural rights after all...

[from Bastiat's The Law]

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

[Harbal]

I would like to think my life is my own...

You'd like to but you don't.

Well what does it even mean to say, "my life is my own"? How much say do you think it will give you in how and when it comes to an end?

simply considering that to be the case makes no difference to anything.

Having a moral claim to one's, and no one else's, life certainly offers, in itself, no practical protections. I don't think, though, the truth of sumthin' is dependent on its utility, its usefulness. There's a black hole at the center of our galaxy. That fact has no obvious utility. And yet that black hole is still there.

When you put it like that, I can see your natural rights as being analogous to a black hole, but perhaps not quite the same kind as the one in the centre of our galaxy.

I don't know why I care, I just know that I do care

This is a philosophy forum so mebbe it's time you figure out the whys of your life.

Mebbe it is, but mebbe I won't bother.

if I find anything sad, it's that you seem not to.

You assume becuz I won't recognize creepy-crawlies and lions as persons, that I reject humane treatment of animals. That's a mistake.

I don't assume that at all; I actually assume you are a decent man, but like you said, this is a philosophy forum, which means we are required to argue merely for the sake of it.

[Harbal]

They are backed by the authority of the state, whose role it is to protect and enforce them. Who or what is going to protect whatever "natural" rights you decide to bestow upon yourself?

You say the conventions are backed by the power of the state. But where do the conventions themselves come from? You might say consensus. But why should there be consensus? We're just animals, morality is just opinion, conscience is just a feeling, so why should we work so hard over the long haul of centuries to move our societies toward messy, chaotic systems where we pretend we have human rights? Our natural state, as animals, is founded on might makes right and the strong rule (and eat) the weak, yes? Why trade off the certainty and simplicity of our natural state for, as I say, messy chaos?

On the other hand, if the state offers to grant me rights, why on earth would I reject their offer?

[from Bastiat's The Law]

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

[from Crocodile Dundee]

"Well, you know, it's like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they're on."

[bahman]

Is it unethical or immoral to kill insects that I don't want occupying my living spaces?

In some sense, I think it is. And yet, if I do not kill them, then they will unbearably overrun my living space and drive me insane from watching them crawling everywhere.

I normally catch and release them if I can. If I cannot catch them they normally starve to death so it is better to kill them. Anyway, they go to a better place so don't feel guilty for killing insects that you cannot catch and release.

[Harbal]

Is it unethical or immoral to kill insects that I don't want occupying my living spaces?

In some sense, I think it is. And yet, if I do not kill them, then they will unbearably overrun my living space and drive me insane from watching them crawling everywhere.

I normally catch and release them if I can. If I cannot catch them they normally starve to death so it is better to kill them. Anyway, they go to a better place so don't feel guilty for killing insects that you cannot catch and release.

Really? Where do they go?

[bahman]

Is it unethical or immoral to kill insects that I don't want occupying my living spaces?

In some sense, I think it is. And yet, if I do not kill them, then they will unbearably overrun my living space and drive me insane from watching them crawling everywhere.

I normally catch and release them if I can. If I cannot catch them they normally starve to death so it is better to kill them. Anyway, they go to a better place so don't feel guilty for killing insects that you cannot catch and release.

Really? Where do they go?

The place that it is awaiting for you, Heaven or Hell!

[Harbal]

I normally catch and release them if I can. If I cannot catch them they normally starve to death so it is better to kill them. Anyway, they go to a better place so don't feel guilty for killing insects that you cannot catch and release.

Really? Where do they go?

The place that it is awaiting for you, Heaven or Hell!

How do you actually know that?

[bahman]

Really? Where do they go?

The place that it is awaiting for you, Heaven or Hell!

How do you actually know that?

Mind is immortal (the proof is very technical and lengthy but I can share it with you if you are interested). Any living being like an insect has a mind since she/he experiences and causes. Therefore, an insect experiences stuff even if his/her body dies. The quality of experiences after their death defines where they are.

[Harbal]

The place that it is awaiting for you, Heaven or Hell!

How do you actually know that?

Mind is immortal (the proof is very technical and lengthy but I can share it with you if you are interested). Any living being like an insect has a mind since she/he experiences and causes. Therefore, an insect experiences stuff even if his/her body dies. The quality of experiences after their death defines where they are.

It sounds like you have it all figured out. It won't be necessary for me to check your working out; carry on.

[bahman]

How do you actually know that?

Mind is immortal (the proof is very technical and lengthy but I can share it with you if you are interested). Any living being like an insect has a mind since she/he experiences and causes. Therefore, an insect experiences stuff even if his/her body dies. The quality of experiences after their death defines where they are.

It sounds like you have it all figured out. It won't be necessary for me to check your working out; carry on.

Cool.