• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

Do you own yourself (self ownership)? Should or shouldnt you own yourself?

  • Yes (should)

    Votes: 32 76.2%

  • Yes (shouldn't)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No (should)

    Votes: 3 7.1%

  • No (shouldn't)

    Votes: 7 16.7%
  • Total voters
    42
Aberration said:
No its not. It is based on an unalienable right bestowed from our Creator. Society only secures those rights, just because society does not kill me does not mean they have granted me anything.
Click to expand...

There is no creator, there are no inalienable rights. Try again.
 
Mach said:
1. Each person in our group of 5, has the exclusive right to their own life under normal circumstances. No one can justifiably take the life of another based on this agreement. No one should, under normal circumstances, take the life of one another, based on this rule. It would be unethical under normal circumstances to take the life of someone else.
Click to expand...
In many groups, for example the Catholic Church, it is immoral to even take your own life. I believe it is also quite illegal in many jurisdictions. That doesn't sound like "exclusive right to use" to me.



Ed:
You people that try to claim the fleas own the dog. *shakes head* It's sad, really, that you can't understand the web of life and how intertwined it all is. To suggest any kind of "natural" ownership of or right to any living thing is arrogance at it's finest. It's understandable in this day and age more than any other how people can get so detached from nature, but it's still sad to see it in what I've always assumed are relatively intelligent adults.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
That's absurd Cephus. For what reason would these individuals, who in your estimation are considered a "society", draw up such a "legal right" as right to life?
You're not accepting that there is a reason why such a right is recognized, you're just stating that the legal right is granted by society.
Click to expand...

Humans are a social species, we need to live together in groups to survive and thrive. These groups put together rules on how we ought to interact in order to strengthen bonds and make social interaction better. There are widespread similarities in a lot of these rules because we're all human and we all have the same needs. Most of these rules are based on enlightened self-interest. We don't want to be killed, therefore we recognize that we ought not kill others. We don't want our stuff to be stolen, therefore we recognize that we shouldn't steal from others. As we start to apply these rules to the majority of people within the society, we dub them "rights". Unfortunately, there have been times when some "rights" haven't applied to all the people, such as blacks or women or gays. We redefine what "rights" are all the time. We can measure how rights change over time and across the landscape. Every society has slightly different rights because that's how they've defined them.

The whole notion that these documents with legal rights are important philosophically, is outrageous. There can be two societies (made up of individuals), that both lay claim to a particular area, for their own "legal reasons". Now what Cephus? The right to life is granted by society A, but society B rejects that claim. Who is going to save your argument now? Society A agree, society B doesn't! Throw up your hands in despair? If that's what your notion of right to life is based on, it's absurd.
Click to expand...

It's happened plenty of times in history, why don't you read a history book and find out how it worked out? Heck, the Bible records a couple of instances where God ordered the Israelites to go in and slaughter every man, woman, child and animal in an area. Right to life my ass. In a lot of these cases, like it or not, might makes right and the victor writes the history.

The right to life is recognized as being important based on two fundamental reasons:
1. Humans on average value their life. A lot. Most have the intellectual capacitiy to recognize this. And most also have the honesty to admit it.
2. As a matter of logical hierarchy, other rights require one to be alive to exercise them, so it has primacy, i.e. hierarchically more important.
(There are other things that can trump it, but that's a different discussion)
Click to expand...

Those are your rationalizations, you cannot demonstrate that either of them are factually true. Neither of them actually demonstrate the right is actually real, you're trying to rationalize it into existence.

As Henrin notes (I think?), it starts with you...the individual. What you want, what you believe, and why. You can of course also be incorrect. You may also join up with others, and based on your individual belief that life is you know...important, you might codify it, and put on a pointy hat and claim "I have granted that right as a society!", and then Cephus will bow down and agree that only NOW do we understand where the right to life came from....
Click to expand...

It starts with the individual and as individuals come together, we come up with rules, some spoken, many unspoken, about how we will interact and deal with each other. Different groups with different views will develop different rules. What were rights for the ancient Mayans is not the same as what are rights for the modern Chinese. Your problem is you're looking for a single, universal, timeless set of "rights" that apply to everyone, everywhere, throughout time. You want something you can point to and declare "this is true and everything else is false". The problem is, that's just not reality. There is no universal, eternal set of moral or social absolutes that you can point to. They just don't exist.
 
LibertyBurns said:
Due to our little debate in another thread figured we could find out what most of you thought.
Click to expand...

1st: What other thread?

2nd: Should have checked the "make poll public" box when you made the poll. I would have loved to have known who picked the "no, shouldn't" option.
 
MoSurveyor said:
In many groups, for example the Catholic Church, it is immoral to even take your own life. That doesn't sound like "exclusive right to use" to me. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Suicide is not a normal circumstance. You didn't meet that criteria. Please try again if you think you have an argument, I'd be happy to take another look. It's not a cop-out, we should discuss normal circumstances because it makes sense to, because that's primarily what our laws are about. Of a meteor is going to hit tomorrow, all that **** goes out the window...I know that, you know what, so let's not debate the emergency exceptions because they cannot tell us about normal circumstnaces that we actually want to operate within.

For arguments sake though, yes, the Catholic church does have some unethical rules! Notice in this case, a person can voluntarily choose to join and obey catholic rules, or not. Thus, right to life is preserved by the individual and relative to catholic ethics, it may indeed by unethical relative to catholics to break the rule you voluntarily agreed to. It happens so much they have a word for that too... "sin" :)

Notice how it would be unethical if the catholic church claimed everyone must follow their rules *even if they don't agree to them*. What that would imply is that the catcholic church has the right to your life, and THEY may choose to loan it to you, or not. Which of course, is obviously unethical.
 
Cephus said:
We don't want to be killed, therefore we recognize
Click to expand...
Yes, we recognize them! Then we "define them". Then, in some cases, we codify them. You contradict what you wrote earlier, that exist because society grants them.
That's illogical...how would we recognized "observe" them, if they didn't already exist prior to society claiming they granted them?

Lunch, more later.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Prove it. When you state something in such a factual way then you must have proof. So prove it.
Click to expand...

Zero evidence to support either. There are no unicorns either.
 
Mach said:
That's absurd Cephus. For what reason would these individuals, who in your estimation are considered a "society", draw up such a "legal right" as right to life?
You're not accepting that there is a reason why such a right is recognized, you're just stating that the legal right is granted by society.
Click to expand...

Mostly on account none of them want to get backshot any more than most of us do. Makes it hard to plan your day.
 
Mach said:
Yes, we recognize them! Then we "define them". Then, in some cases, we codify them. You contradict what you wrote earlier, that exist because society grants them.
That's illogical...how would we recognized "observe" them, if they didn't already exist prior to society claiming they granted them?
Click to expand...

I never said we recognized rights, I said we recognized reciprocal responsibility. We don't want to be killed, therefore we don't kill others. Enlightened self-interest.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Lack of evidence =/= does not exist.
Click to expand...

Very true, but lack of evidence means absolutely no credible reason to think that it does.

Or do you believe in absolutely ever cockamamie idea that comes down the pike because it just might possibly exist?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I have a leprechaun farm I'd like to sell you.
Click to expand...

If you had such a thing then you would have proof of it...proof that you have it please! Don't forget the pictures and video of them carrying their pot-o-gold!

Of course if you had such a thing then it still wouldn't mean that "lack of evidence =/= does not exist" is not correct.

This didn't help you much now did it?
 
Mach said:
Suicide is not a normal circumstance. You didn't meet that criteria. Please try again if you think you have an argument, I'd be happy to take another look. It's not a cop-out, we should discuss normal circumstances because it makes sense to, because that's primarily what our laws are about. Of a meteor is going to hit tomorrow, all that **** goes out the window...I know that, you know what, so let's not debate the emergency exceptions because they cannot tell us about normal circumstnaces that we actually want to operate within.

For arguments sake though, yes, the Catholic church does have some unethical rules! Notice in this case, a person can voluntarily choose to join and obey catholic rules, or not. Thus, right to life is preserved by the individual and relative to catholic ethics, it may indeed by unethical relative to catholics to break the rule you voluntarily agreed to. It happens so much they have a word for that too... "sin" :)

Notice how it would be unethical if the catholic church claimed everyone must follow their rules *even if they don't agree to them*. What that would imply is that the catcholic church has the right to your life, and THEY may choose to loan it to you, or not. Which of course, is obviously unethical.
Click to expand...
Then your use of the term "normal circumstances" has contradicted the basic premise that ownership is an "exclusive right to use". Obviously, you've made it a conditional right to use.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If you had such a thing then you would have proof of it...proof that you have it please! Don't forget the pictures and video of them carrying their pot-o-gold!

Of course if you had such a thing then it still wouldn't mean that "lack of evidence =/= does not exist" is not correct.

This didn't help you much now did it?
Click to expand...

There's no proof it doesn't exist therefore why not assume it does, right?
 
Cephus said:
Very true, but lack of evidence means absolutely no credible reason to think that it does.

Or do you believe in absolutely ever cockamamie idea that comes down the pike because it just might possibly exist?
Click to expand...

Actually I do believe that anything is possible. Even if it is unlikely. But then again being possible =/= real either. ;) So in the end lets just say that I sit on the fence for most things.

For example if you had said that unicorns do not exist on this planet then I would have definitely agreed with you. But I would still consider the possibility that they do exist on another planet. ;)
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
There's no proof it doesn't exist therefore why not assume it does, right?
Click to expand...

Ah but if you say that you have one I can request proof of it.

See there is a difference between stating something as fact and stating something as a belief. When one states something as fact then requesting proof of the stated fact is acceptable. When one states something as a belief then no proof is necessary or required as it is based off of nothing more than ones own opinion. Ones opinion =/= fact.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Ah but if you say that you have one I can request proof of it.

See there is a difference between stating something as fact and stating something as a belief. When one states something as fact then requesting proof of the stated fact is acceptable. When one states something as a belief then no proof is necessary or required as it is based off of nothing more than ones own opinion. Ones opinion =/= fact.
Click to expand...

What're beliefs based upon? Facts. Facts which have been questioned and have turned up rather empty. If your beliefs are based on facts which have been invalidated, is your belief not invalidated?
 
Last edited:
zgoldsmith23 said:
There's no proof it doesn't exist therefore why not assume it does, right?
Click to expand...

Because there is no such thing as proof that something doesn't exist, and by that standard you'd have to assume that everything for which there is no proof it doesn't exist, exists. Even the demonstrably false; which makes it a terrible standard for belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom