All lives are equivalent...and I'm not talking about just homo sapiens
The minute you begin to think you can assign various values to different forms of life is the minute you lose respect for all forms of life.
bull.. if I pay $8 for a lobster roll, then that lobster itself was worth less than $8.. I aint one of those "dont eat the lobster, it is invaluable" hippies.. I say eat all the animals you want! plants too!(yes, plants are alive... and can be had cheaply, even free)
Human rights is "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."
In other words, it's a set of assumptions on what all humans should be entitled to on a minimum level.
To assign additional value to certain individual's lives is not a denial of human rights. The human rights view does not assume that all people's lives are of equal value, only that they should all be entitled to certain fundamental rights, or that they all have a minimal value.
As for a criminal, I would direct you to the philosophy which says that a person's rights ends where they begin to infringe on the rights of another. A criminal has forfeited his own rights to some degree by overstepping this boundary. (Of course, we have judicial rights, to ensure that you are dealt with fairly until you can be proven to be a criminal.) This illustrates that human rights is not some invisible constant in the universe, but a matter of policy of certain agencies and governments.
And the reason we assign human rights, is of course, because we ourselves want to enjoy the rights outlined in such a philosophy, not because there is some self-evident fact or almighty god that dictates all humans should enjoy certain rights (I'll probably take some heat for that, and yes I have always disagreed with the "self-evident" argument in the U.S. Constitution.). Which is why I feel that the premise of this discussion should be fleshed out a little more. I think that people assume a lot when they talk about the "value of life" or "human rights" or other things like that.
Thanks for your input.
I did not mean specifically that there is a contradiction, even if i employed the word "but".
I think at the regard of the law and therefore the constitution (the highest level of the law), all lifes are equal.
Otherwise for the additional value, I agree with your excellent wording and fair point of vue.
don't know where you're from but in the US it is common knowledge that the general white population gives a rats ass about so called "POC" They're only liked when Kissing ass and doing what they are told. I'm sure some other people out there are just as xenophobic but History is yet to show a group of people with less regeard for others than whites in the US.
I mean two nuclear bombs on Japan and no one blinks? Massive killings in Vietnam and still people talk like it was "ok." I won't even get into the slave trade and the events following that, nor will I even mention the very way this particular country was created.
I won't even get into how the NY Police Benevolent Association want's the NYPD' Chief's head for correctly asserting that the recent shooting in Brooklyn was unjustified. I mean you gotta be carefull around them Ni%%%%s.
Or maybe how though a white male in Ohio was actually drunk and shot at police, and resisted arrest, he is alive today, while that black man who was doing nothing but talkin' junk managed to get beaten to death for being 'high."
History shows that there were many white persons that disagreed with such things, but they were a minority and did very little (aside from protests, speeches and letter writing) to stop these things.
But i'm sure someone here will call me a racist for even bringing this up.
Much of what you say is true Sondjata, but don't paint everyone with the same brush.
Is this just a property of white Americans? Perhaps people of all origins and nationalities have this problem? Do most people care the most about the people that they identify with ? I think so.
So if you don't care, maybe you should reevaluate that stance. But of course that's just me, I could be mistaken.
No, you're not mistaken.
As for me, I care in the general "goodwill towards man" sense, and I would offer my sympathies to anyone who's suffered such a loss, but if I find it difficult to get really worked up about something I only heard about through CNN. Does that make any sense?
Absolutely, and in most cases I understand it's a bit illogical for someone to get emotionally worked up over a news report or newspaper article.
Stuff like watching the WTC crumble on live television is a little different (because you're seeing the death unfurl before you) but in general people will only get truly emotional when something hits closer to home. There's nothing bad about that.
All I was really saying was that it doesn't hurt to pause for a moment when we hear of 50 people (or even 5 or 10) dying in one fell swoop at the hands of another human being(s). Think about the implications of that and recognize it's not just a news blurb. It's real and somewhere out there, people are in anguish over it... we just can't see them without a TV in most cases.
Much of what you say is true Sondjata, but don't paint everyone with the same brush.
Is this just a property of white Americans? Perhaps people of all origins and nationalities have this problem? Do most people care the most about the people that they identify with ? I think so.
I think that i left room in my original post for the xenophobic behaviours of other peoples, if I didn't then I'll add that here. While I agree that generally people care for those closest to them (in fact I made this argument against an article by Tim Wise), I think the amount of killing that Americans allow to happen to other people for their material benefit is simply outrageous
Equal potential if presented with the equal oppertunity.
not true.
The Mau Mau of Kenya thought of killing whites en masse. They declined not due to lack of oppoortunity but because they didn't want to kill off innocent people.
The Chinese developed gunpowder and never considered ( or at least considered it and declined) to use it to kill.
All lives are not equal. I don't think a genocidal maniac's life is worth the same as that of a saint. The value of a person's life depends on their usefulness to the one making the judgement.
Hence GWB decided that the value of oil outweighs the lives of people,... Hence the west supports Sharon with money and weapons while he continues to butcher a nation... Hence the pope states the fate of the free world depends on the outcome of the war in Iraq...
but would he consider American lives worth less than oil? would the American people consider the lives of Americans they did not know worth less than oil?
On a slightly different note (not to the question but to how the thread has progressed), I recently read a news article about a man (who coincidentally lives in the same city as me) who strangled a swan to death in public (not that that makes a difference, just describing the event) with his bare hands. For this 'act' he received a 3 month prison sentance.
Whilst I appreciate the argument that I am committing the same act everyday when I eat a chicken sandwich (which I believe unjust based on the laws of biology and food chains etc.), I was appalled by both the length of his sentance and the little public outcry that it invoked. Whilst I am not so naive to understand the way the world works in this age, I found it easy to imagine the differences had this been to a young child.
don't know where you're from but in the US it is common knowledge that the general white population gives a rats ass about so called "POC" They're only liked when Kissing ass and doing what they are told. I'm sure some other people out there are just as xenophobic but History is yet to show a group of people with less regeard for others than whites in the US.
I mean two nuclear bombs on Japan and no one blinks? Massive killings in Vietnam and still people talk like it was "ok." I won't even get into the slave trade and the events following that, nor will I even mention the very way this particular country was created.
-Snip-
But i'm sure someone here will call me a racist for even bringing this up.
Uh, I would not call you a racist based on this post, but I strongly suggest you do a little historical research before you make such ludicrous statements.
Off the top of my head:
The Khmer Rouge killed off around 21% of the Cambodian population.
The Hutus killed around 75% of the Tutsi in Rwanda.
Millions of Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese.
Millions of Chinese civilians killed off by the Chinese.
I could keep going on, but why bother.
If you study history and other cultures you will find that, in general, the current USA has a greater regard for others then most cultures throughout history.
The Mau Mau of Kenya thought of killing whites en masse. They declined not due to lack of oppoortunity but because they didn't want to kill off innocent people.
The Chinese developed gunpowder and never considered ( or at least considered it and declined) to use it to kill.
Just two historical examples.
And the Hutus killed around 75% of the Tutsi in Rwanda. There are dozens of examples of African massacres throughout history.
The Chinese had gunpowder, but not the metallurgy to make cannons -- so what? They still killed innocents, raped and made wars just like everyone else. It does not matter if they kill you will a club, knife, arrow, greek fire, cannon, machine gun, or their hands.
Humans are naturally tribal people. In general they care about first themselves and family, than successionally larger overlapping social groups.
Comments
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
All lives are equivalent...and I'm not talking about just homo sapiens
The minute you begin to think you can assign various values to different forms of life is the minute you lose respect for all forms of life.
bull.. if I pay $8 for a lobster roll, then that lobster itself was worth less than $8.. I aint one of those "dont eat the lobster, it is invaluable" hippies.. I say eat all the animals you want! plants too!(yes, plants are alive... and can be had cheaply, even free)
Originally posted by Ganondorf
That's not necessarily a contradiction.
Human rights is "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."
In other words, it's a set of assumptions on what all humans should be entitled to on a minimum level.
To assign additional value to certain individual's lives is not a denial of human rights. The human rights view does not assume that all people's lives are of equal value, only that they should all be entitled to certain fundamental rights, or that they all have a minimal value.
As for a criminal, I would direct you to the philosophy which says that a person's rights ends where they begin to infringe on the rights of another. A criminal has forfeited his own rights to some degree by overstepping this boundary. (Of course, we have judicial rights, to ensure that you are dealt with fairly until you can be proven to be a criminal.) This illustrates that human rights is not some invisible constant in the universe, but a matter of policy of certain agencies and governments.
And the reason we assign human rights, is of course, because we ourselves want to enjoy the rights outlined in such a philosophy, not because there is some self-evident fact or almighty god that dictates all humans should enjoy certain rights (I'll probably take some heat for that, and yes I have always disagreed with the "self-evident" argument in the U.S. Constitution.). Which is why I feel that the premise of this discussion should be fleshed out a little more. I think that people assume a lot when they talk about the "value of life" or "human rights" or other things like that.
Thanks for your input.
I did not mean specifically that there is a contradiction, even if i employed the word "but".
I think at the regard of the law and therefore the constitution (the highest level of the law), all lifes are equal.
Otherwise for the additional value, I agree with your excellent wording and fair point of vue.
I mean two nuclear bombs on Japan and no one blinks? Massive killings in Vietnam and still people talk like it was "ok." I won't even get into the slave trade and the events following that, nor will I even mention the very way this particular country was created.
I won't even get into how the NY Police Benevolent Association want's the NYPD' Chief's head for correctly asserting that the recent shooting in Brooklyn was unjustified. I mean you gotta be carefull around them Ni%%%%s.
Or maybe how though a white male in Ohio was actually drunk and shot at police, and resisted arrest, he is alive today, while that black man who was doing nothing but talkin' junk managed to get beaten to death for being 'high."
History shows that there were many white persons that disagreed with such things, but they were a minority and did very little (aside from protests, speeches and letter writing) to stop these things.
But i'm sure someone here will call me a racist for even bringing this up.
Is this just a property of white Americans? Perhaps people of all origins and nationalities have this problem? Do most people care the most about the people that they identify with ? I think so.
Originally posted by Moogs
So if you don't care, maybe you should reevaluate that stance. But of course that's just me, I could be mistaken.
No, you're not mistaken.
As for me, I care in the general "goodwill towards man" sense, and I would offer my sympathies to anyone who's suffered such a loss, but if I find it difficult to get really worked up about something I only heard about through CNN. Does that make any sense?
Stuff like watching the WTC crumble on live television is a little different (because you're seeing the death unfurl before you) but in general people will only get truly emotional when something hits closer to home. There's nothing bad about that.
All I was really saying was that it doesn't hurt to pause for a moment when we hear of 50 people (or even 5 or 10) dying in one fell swoop at the hands of another human being(s). Think about the implications of that and recognize it's not just a news blurb. It's real and somewhere out there, people are in anguish over it... we just can't see them without a TV in most cases.
Originally posted by Beige_G3
Much of what you say is true Sondjata, but don't paint everyone with the same brush.
Is this just a property of white Americans? Perhaps people of all origins and nationalities have this problem? Do most people care the most about the people that they identify with ? I think so.
I think that i left room in my original post for the xenophobic behaviours of other peoples, if I didn't then I'll add that here. While I agree that generally people care for those closest to them (in fact I made this argument against an article by Tim Wise), I think the amount of killing that Americans allow to happen to other people for their material benefit is simply outrageous
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Equal potential if presented with the equal oppertunity.
not true.
The Mau Mau of Kenya thought of killing whites en masse. They declined not due to lack of oppoortunity but because they didn't want to kill off innocent people.
The Chinese developed gunpowder and never considered ( or at least considered it and declined) to use it to kill.
Just two historical examples.
Insurance companies have dollar amounts for the value of someones life.
Hence GWB decided that the value of oil outweighs the lives of people,... Hence the west supports Sharon with money and weapons while he continues to butcher a nation... Hence the pope states the fate of the free world depends on the outcome of the war in Iraq...
Whilst I appreciate the argument that I am committing the same act everyday when I eat a chicken sandwich (which I believe unjust based on the laws of biology and food chains etc.), I was appalled by both the length of his sentance and the little public outcry that it invoked. Whilst I am not so naive to understand the way the world works in this age, I found it easy to imagine the differences had this been to a young child.
Originally posted by Sondjata
don't know where you're from but in the US it is common knowledge that the general white population gives a rats ass about so called "POC" They're only liked when Kissing ass and doing what they are told. I'm sure some other people out there are just as xenophobic but History is yet to show a group of people with less regeard for others than whites in the US.
I mean two nuclear bombs on Japan and no one blinks? Massive killings in Vietnam and still people talk like it was "ok." I won't even get into the slave trade and the events following that, nor will I even mention the very way this particular country was created.
-Snip-
But i'm sure someone here will call me a racist for even bringing this up.
Uh, I would not call you a racist based on this post, but I strongly suggest you do a little historical research before you make such ludicrous statements.
Off the top of my head:
The Khmer Rouge killed off around 21% of the Cambodian population.
The Hutus killed around 75% of the Tutsi in Rwanda.
Millions of Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese.
Millions of Chinese civilians killed off by the Chinese.
I could keep going on, but why bother.
If you study history and other cultures you will find that, in general, the current USA has a greater regard for others then most cultures throughout history.
Originally posted by Sondjata
not true.
The Mau Mau of Kenya thought of killing whites en masse. They declined not due to lack of oppoortunity but because they didn't want to kill off innocent people.
The Chinese developed gunpowder and never considered ( or at least considered it and declined) to use it to kill.
Just two historical examples.
And the Hutus killed around 75% of the Tutsi in Rwanda. There are dozens of examples of African massacres throughout history.
The Chinese had gunpowder, but not the metallurgy to make cannons -- so what? They still killed innocents, raped and made wars just like everyone else. It does not matter if they kill you will a club, knife, arrow, greek fire, cannon, machine gun, or their hands.
Humans are naturally tribal people. In general they care about first themselves and family, than successionally larger overlapping social groups.