Death penalty for ........ ?

Ikari said:

I'm asking questions, don't get mad bro.

Click to expand...

I'm not remotely mad and I'm not remotely a 'bro.'

This is all softballs so far.

Sherman123 said:

What do you think of the Papacy's restrictive approach to capital punishment?

Click to expand...

In principle it is correct. Capital punishment should be used when necessary to protect society from criminals. The problem with life imprisonment is that it poses a greater risk to the lives of the guards and the other prisoners.

Ikari said:

I'm asking questions, don't get mad bro. There's no goal posts being moved. You gave an example, but it wasn't in context to this conversation and it has arbitrary definitions based on where you want to draw a line for interdependency.

Cultures around the world not recognizing equal rights of all humans is not evidence that human life doesn't share the same base value, nor does it mean that it is not intrinsic. You're making a logical leap. The free exercise of rights can certainly be infringed upon by outside force. So while all human life carries inherent value, it does not mean that all cultures or people will recognize or respect that value.

So back to the original question, which you haven't addressed. If humans are not equal, that their lives hold no value, then how are those inequalities introduced? What breaks the symmetry?

Click to expand...

There was nothing arbitrary about my answer(s). If there were, please address them specifically.

And you claim that equal rights for humans is 'intrinsic.' Obviously it is not since ALL cultures do not recognize that. It is a belief, nothing more.

I also never said human lives hold no value (not even of the unborn) but that that value is subjective.

Please at least be accurate when interpreting my words. Then you wont have as much reason to accuse me of 'not answering.'

Lursa said:

Obviously it is not since ALL cultures do not recognize that. It is a belief, nothing more.

Click to expand...

This is false. Just because all cultures do not recognize the intrinsic value of human life does not mean that human life has no intrinsic value. It means that it's not universally recognized. Second time I've debunked this, want to keep going in circles with your argument?

So back to the original question, which you haven't addressed. If humans are not equal, that their lives hold no value, then how are those inequalities introduced? What breaks the symmetry?

Ikari said:

This is false. Just because all cultures do not recognize the intrinsic value of human life does not mean that human life has no intrinsic value. It means that it's not universally recognized. Second time I've debunked this, want to keep going in circles with your argument?

So back to the original question, which you haven't addressed. If humans are not equal, that their lives hold no value, then how are those inequalities introduced? What breaks the symmetry?

Click to expand...

OK, great. Please prove the intrinsic value. Please explain how your view of the intrinsic value of humans exists (and is correct, if that is also part of your claim).

And I already answered that question. I cant change my answer without knowing why you dont understand it. (Not to mention that I never said they hold no value, so again....I think your needle is stuck.)

Lursa said:

OK, great. Please prove the intrinsic value. Please explain how your view of the intrinsic value of humans exists (and is correct, if that is also part of your claim).

And I already answered that question. I cant change my answer without knowing why you dont understand it. (Not to mention that I never said they hold no value, so again....I think your needle is stuck.)

Click to expand...

You never answered the question. You've in fact dodged once again.

Intrinsic value is given from the fact that at base, fundamentally, all humans are equal. We're all human, all deserving of the same dynamics and basics of life. If we're all fundamentally equal, then there are limitations to what we may justly do to each other and it's these limitations which define our innate rights. I see no reason why it would be that any one human is fundamentally different or entitled to more or worth more than another. We're either equal or we're not. Those are the only options. If we're equal, human life has intrinsic value and humans possess innate rights; it follows logically from that. The only way for human life to not have value or for humans to not have some basic and shared set of rights, is if fundamentally humans are not equal; that some have entitlement over others.

I can't begin to imagine where that entitlement can be justifiably rooted. But perhaps you can explain, yes? What breaks the symmetry?

Ikari said:

Intrinsic value is given from the fact that at base, fundamentally, all humans are equal.

Click to expand...

Who says? This is not universally believed or accepted so exactly how are you making this claim as fact?

I've asked you this several times and you just keep writing it over and over.

Please provide some proof that this is not just yours or some other opinion? It is a subjective belief.

Lursa said:

OK, great. Please prove the intrinsic value. Please explain how your view of the intrinsic value of humans exists (and is correct, if that is also part of your claim).

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

You never answered the question. You've in fact dodged once again.


I can't begin to imagine where that entitlement can be justifiably rooted. But perhaps you can explain, yes? What breaks the symmetry?

Click to expand...

Again...

Lursa said:

And I already answered that question. I cant change my answer without knowing why you dont understand it. (Not to mention that I never said they hold no value, so again....I think your needle is stuck.)

Click to expand...