|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:10 am
I don't believe that any person has the 'right' to exist.
Before a person is born, they do absolutely nothing to earn the right to live. People are simply born, without deserving to be born. People come into existance as the result of a biological function, not because they proved themselves worthy of life.
No one has a 'right' to exist, since there is not a single human who earned their existance, proved their worth, or did anything to deserve life, before they came into existance.
Besides - under the philosophy that all humans have the right to exist, all humans are entitled to unhindered existance; thus, immortality. If humans did not die, then the Earth would become so severely overpopulated that achieving a worthwhile existance would be impossible. The amount of waste produced and space occupied would overtake the world until it was turned to ruin.
Some lives are worthless. Their loss is irrelevant. For example, uncivilized humans or tribal humans contribute nothing to humanity and are no different than beasts. Furthermore, humans whom do not care if their actions cause emotional or physical harm to other humans should be exterminated.
The ideal world would be maintained at a small population (no more than 1 billion) and would see the execution of any human without compassion for fellow humans.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:25 am
Well in this world, people are taught in this way-- ' Do more good deeds and you will go heaven or even reincarnation to a good family.' And seriously it's the culture we learn told us this stupid crap.
I agreed to your point.
Yes, people who are worthless and do nothing good in life should just be better off dead. Like for example, those rapist who seek for any girls to have pleasure with, terrorist who think what they'd done are right and killing lives without second thoughts.
Seriously, I don't think they should live in anyway. They are just causing chaos in this world and another word they are a 'parasite.'
Yes, human are born through biological process with women's ovum and man's sperms.
I don't believe why a person is born for any reason or right.
[[ too tired to think..maybe i am just repeating what you'd said. Sorry for that ]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:09 am
Whoa, slow down. You've taken this all the wrong way I think.
First, nobody ever was trying to say you've done any kind of earning before being born or anything. Before birth, you exist pretty much because the person hosting you still wants you to. If they didn't, any law to the contrary be damned, they could try to get rid of you from living off their body and if you couldn't survive without living off them that's your problem. However, it is as we get older and more capable of self-sustaining acts that we earn the right to our lives with every act we take to preserve our lives without initiating a violation of the rights of anybody else through force or fraud (because in spite of what it may look like, doing this would in fact ultimately be a hindrance and not an aid to an individual living and living well. So yeah, I'm not supporting murderers and rapists before you take what I've been saying the wrong way.)
Also, Objectivism has been referred to by its creator as a philosophy meant for living in this world. Key words here "this world," not some imaginary fantasy land where we can make up the laws of physics as we want them on a whim. In this world we so far have not found any way to beat off death forever, so we just make do with what we can. We do our best to live as well as we can for as long as we can for as long as it is possible to us. We aren't stupid enough to demand right this instant immortality because we supposedly deserve it. Not to mention, if we did have guaranteed "true immortality," like the kind where you not only don't die so long as you keep meeting certain criteria (which might not be bad at all), but you CAN'T die, then that would practically throw so many rules out the window of how we have any deserving or control of our lives anyway. We now no longer live by our choices and earning it, we live because we have to whether we do anything or not even if we don't want to. Life is now no longer earned, but forced upon us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:30 am
EvaXephon, you seem to misunderstand the nature of rights. Rights do not mean an entitlement to the impossible, and the "right to life" doesn't mean you get to live, no questions asked, it means no one can interfere in your attempts to continue living (unless of course you interfere in theirs).
As for humans who don't care about "emotional or physical harm-" By what right would you exterminate them? I don't care, as such, whether I somehow cause emotional harm to you (I don't know you) and my prohibition against physically harming you is derived from my own desire not to be harmed, not something in and of itself, and so by some definitions wouldn't be "caring."
You seek to exterminate me for not living for your sake?
You seek to execute those who don't share, of all things, your EMOTIONS? Executing those who actually harm you is one thing, but what you are speaking of is plain and simple mass murder for refusal to think the way you do, and if you follow through with it it's YOU who ought to be executed.
If immortality comes about, you have no right to stop it. The solution to overpopulation is to stop reproducing so much, not to kill people who earn their existence (and trust me, immortality won't come about unless people earn it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:57 am
oh boy where to begin.
so by your logic what rights do you have that you earned? What did you do to deserve the right to excersise the rights given to you by your state? probly nothing, but that doesn't take those rights away from you.
everyone has the "right" to live, not because they earned it but because life is really the one thing that someone will always have, everything else is variable.
having the right to life doesn't necesarily mean that you need to be immortal, the right to live is the right to die because the nature of life.
and that little blurb about natives? that was ignorant. they aren't doing anything for society sure, but is that really a bad thing? I tell you what they aren't contributing to, globilization, pollution, various crimes and general douche baggery that comes with the territory of capitalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:43 pm
See if you can name to what is in the very nature of globalization that is bad and not a side effect of people doing other stuff in response to it that they'd be better off not doing? Pollution to some extent comes from what we've got so far as our best options for making our lives capable of being as good as they are (within the limit of bAyng being not enough of it that it is directly killing people who can't reasonably avoid it, because when you've begun to kill off the very people your products are made to help you've clearly become counter-productive at the very least. Perhaps better options will come along eventually though that won't have this, in which case, hey great. ) and to some extent is the result of just lazy people who are not treating their products properly and causing problems that are not inherent in the nature of the products they use just because they're too impatient to properly dispose of say something that is radioactive (in which case you get very uncool stuff happening like an episode of House I saw.) So not contributing to pollution I don't see how that makes them so grand necessarily, since in this case it clearly doesn't mean they've figured out how to make that awesome static powered generator. Since when does bAyng being from any culture make you immune to having members who will ever commit crimes? Do you seriously think nobody among them ever murdered one of their own in their entire history? And "general douche baggery" -- first not everybody to get near capitalism fits that, it is very far from bAyng being an inherent part of capitalism (and I'd say is much more likely to come from those improperly implementing it) and also show me how NOT bAyng being a capitalist means you're immune to having such obnoxious attitudes? Again I think you're bAyng being ridiculous if you think every native of any civilization never had within their own communities or even just families people that they thought were obnoxious assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:13 am
A right granted by whom?
Rights are created by man, but man is not created by man, therefore we can not say that someone has the right to live when another man's life is not ours to govern or dictate.
Like I said, rights are put forth by man, but life is not man's to govern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:09 pm
Ah... *hitches up pants*
Let's see. First, of course people have the 'right' to exist. The people who brought them forth worked hard to get them, and so in killing them, you're trampling all over those people's right to bear children, which is something the nature of living gave them. So their right to live in their early years comes not from any inherent value in their lives, but from the sacrifice made for them at their birth. Just because Christianity is a religion doesn't mean none of it's ideas come close to truth.
Second, I'm just gonna say ditto to bluecherry on the immortality thing, because they got it right.
Third, tribal humans have as much right to exist as anyone else. They create everything they need, which is more than most people can say. They don't infringe on your rights, do they? Is your life worse now, just because they go about their lives, ignorant of their condemnation at your hands? On the other hand, people who molest others, murderers and the like, while they shouldn't be 'eliminated,' retribution should be demanded, and they should be, to repeat a cliche, 'shown the error of their ways.' Anything more would be unnecessary.
Fourth and finally, this, 'ideal' world, who are you to arbitrarily decide what the ideal world would be? That's not your decision to make. All anyone can do is work with what'cha got... XD.
Mmkay, I'm done...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:34 pm
So you Theorize that no One Themselves Earns this Right of Existance... but perhaps You should Consider it Differently? That is, did the Parents of a Child Earn the Right for their Kin to Exist?
Certainly Incompetant People should not be Allowed to have Children, especially if They cannot so much as even Care for them. But if that Right is Earned, with hardwork, perhaps the Parents have Earned the Right for Their Child, in the Child's Place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:35 pm
GoldM4rc5 A right granted by whom? Rights are created by man, but man is not created by man, therefore we can not say that someone has the right to live when another man's life is not ours to govern or dictate. Like I said, rights are put forth by man, but life is not man's to govern. I Love this Post. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:15 pm
Why don't we have the right to exist?
Existence is like I dont know living so are you saying that when u were born you didnt have the right to live and your parents had no right to live and that NOBODY had the right to live?
If thats what you mean then all I have to say is bleh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:05 pm
You misinterpreted part of the question I think. I think the question stated "inherent right to exist" and we stated (or I did at least if I'm only to speak for myself) that just because you exist that doesn't mean you have the right to exist (meaning, you don't have an INHERENT right to exist, yes,) you have the right to exist from doing things to try to keep surviving without violating anybody else's rights through the initiation of force or fraud (when it doesn't look like the other party/parties is pretty surely going to do something that start a rights violation themselves first if nobody stops them.) This last part means the right to self-defense exists whereas if just existing meant you had the right to keep doing so, you wouldn't have any right to defend yourself or anyone or anything from anybody else who was out to do a rights violation. It would be like "you have rights and we call anybody who violates them awful, but unless you're awful too you can't do anything about it." Essentially, the idea of an "inherent" right to exist simply because you do makes rights become pretty much useless, pointless, impotent words that you just use to call people names, get mad at them, but do nothing. They cease to have any consequences. And if it were the case that these were really just words without consequence that don't do anything, that don't really have any logical reason for you to follow them and that people use to call you names that just mean "we don't like you" -- then it would be the wiser person who ignored "rights." Hence any so called "inherent" rights are a pretty absurd and self-defeating thing. O_o;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:42 pm
Napoleon_Danneskjold EvaXephon, you seem to misunderstand the nature of rights. Rights do not mean an entitlement to the impossible, and the "right to life" doesn't mean you get to live, no questions asked, it means no one can interfere in your attempts to continue living (unless of course you interfere in theirs). As for humans who don't care about "emotional or physical harm-" By what right would you exterminate them? I don't care, as such, whether I somehow cause emotional harm to you (I don't know you) and my prohibition against physically harming you is derived from my own desire not to be harmed, not something in and of itself, and so by some definitions wouldn't be "caring." You seek to exterminate me for not living for your sake? You seek to execute those who don't share, of all things, your EMOTIONS? Executing those who actually harm you is one thing, but what you are speaking of is plain and simple mass murder for refusal to think the way you do, and if you follow through with it it's YOU who ought to be executed. If immortality comes about, you have no right to stop it. The solution to overpopulation is to stop reproducing so much, not to kill people who earn their existence (and trust me, immortality won't come about unless people earn it). I would comment, but I think this nicely sums up my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:00 am
I think people have an inherent right to exist because we exist. Its sort of a "i tink therefore i am" type of thing. Before birth there is a million things that can go wrong, and if they don't we call it luck. After knowing people who have had still borns and the like i can't honestly say that we don't have a right to exist. The love that most mothers feel for their children before they are born is one of the most awsome forces this world has. The death of a child is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to a person so when we are consceved (mostl likely misspelled) we carry that possibility, the posibility that we will destroy the one who loves us the most by simply ceasing to exist and if that doesn't give you a right to exist then nothing can. Not the hardest strugles or the most glorious battles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:34 am
To answer this question, you really ought to read Ayn Rand's other works, including The Virtue of Selfishness and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
A right does not include a guarantee. The right to life doesn't mean that your life is guaranteed. A right is in fact a right to an action.
To Ayn Rand, life was a series of self generated and self beneficial action. In this way, life is a choice. The right to life has nothing to do with making sure you stay alive - all it does is keep anyone else from taking your ability to live away from you. Whether you live or die is all up to your actions, but no one can take away your ability to live (meaning no one can take away your capacity for self generated action, nor can anyone take away the benefits of such action, as without either you'd be incapable of life).
Obviously,your next two points are null if this is true, because it's no guarantee that anyone will live. But let's examine those as well anyways.
"Some lives are worthless. Their loss is irrelevant. For example, uncivilized humans or tribal humans contribute nothing to humanity and are no different than beasts. Furthermore, humans whom do not care if their actions cause emotional or physical harm to other humans should be exterminated. "
Is it man's obligation to contribute to others? Maybe you ought to read Anthem again. The only moral ends to which a man can live is his own, no one else's. If he lives for someone else (meaning that the benefits of his self generated action go to someone else), he will die.
"The ideal world would be maintained at a small population (no more than 1 billion) and would see the execution of any human without compassion for fellow humans. "
Is it your right to take away the rights of others? I think that, by killing others, you forfeit your own right to existence. I see no reason why any human being is morally obligated to be compassionate for others. Does anyone have the right to a man's compassion? I think not. If this man is not depriving others of rights, in what position are you to claim that he must die?
Napolen_Danneskjold sums it up pretty well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
