NationStates Jolt Archive

The question "is life per definition good" is one which is often automatically answered with "yes" by pro-life and anti-euthanasia advocates. In the case of abortion for instance it is argued that killing a foetus is harming it. Since the foetus itself cannot feel and experience anything, this argument only has merit if you can show that "being alive" is something postive, that the biological fact of being alive has value regardless of the person (or thing - this can be just as well be applied to animals) living it. In the case of euthanasia the opponents argue that the wishes of the person living the life are less important than preserving the biological fact of life. Again, this only makes sense if you assume that life=good.

My question is: what is the basis of the assumption that "life = good" ? Why not "life=bad" or "life= neutral, it depends what you make of it" ?

Do note that if you believe in "the greatest happiness principle[1]" and pick "life=bad" you are in favour of killing everyone, while if you pick "life= neutral, it depends what you make of it" you should in principle be pro-euthanasia and pro-choice.

[1]Greatest happiness principle: actions are right only insofar as they tend to produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the largest number of people.

Life=neutral
And I'm pro-choice and pro-euthanasia
Value of life is the main thing. But there's no universal "valuable life", it has to be carefully considered in every case.


Waiting for other opinions....

Why just human life?
I dont like doing this, but I see all this debating over what is murdering, what is life, blah blah blah... but the fact that animals are alive, feeling, real things seems to be forgotten.
People think it is inheritantly evil to kill somebody who is begging to die, and to kill something that doesnt even have a nervous system, but it is ok to torture and kill billions of animals per year.
I suspect that this comes from the Christian attitude that humans are perfect and animals are less... so it is the sanctity of human life that they are trying to protect, not life itself. However, it is well known that animals feel emotions and pain just like humans do... granted they dont have aspirations for life, nor do they have our level of intelligence, but that doesn't mean shouldn't be able to live normal lives in their normal habitats.

What I don't get is how anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia people often manage to support death sentencies...

and about animals. IMO it's ok to farm and slaughter animals but it should be done with minimal cruelty. E.g. I eat eggs but only organic.

Why just human life?

As you hopefully saw, I tucked in a small sentence on how this reasoning could also be applied to animals ;)

The Alma Mater: so what's your view on the issue?

The question "is life per definition good" is one which is often automatically answered with "yes" by pro-life and anti-euthanasia advocates. In the case of abortion for instance it is argued that killing a foetus is harming it. Since the foetus itself cannot feel and experience anything, this argument only has merit if you can show that "being alive" is something postive, that the biological fact of being alive has value regardless of the person (or thing - this can be just as well be applied to animals) living it. In the case of euthanasia the opponents argue that the wishes of the person living the life are less important than preserving the biological fact of life. Again, this only makes sense if you assume that life=good.

My question is: what is the basis of the assumption that "life = good" ? Why not "life=bad" or "life= neutral, it depends what you make of it" ?

Do note that if you believe in "the greatest happiness principle[1]" and pick "life=bad" you are in favour of killing everyone, while if you pick "life= neutral, it depends what you make of it" you should in principle be pro-euthanasia and pro-choice.

[1]Greatest happiness principle: actions are right only insofar as they tend to produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the largest number of people.
in my opinion, life=neutral, which is why the quality of being alive doesn't impart some magical benefit to all existence. i don't think the world is made a better place each time we add a new living thing to it. however, i tend to think that consciousness=very cool and interesting, so adding a new consciousness makes me much more excited.

...I suspect that this comes from the Christian attitude that humans are perfect and animals are less... so it is the sanctity of human life that they are trying to protect, not life itself...
hmm, why, in your opinion, people are much more ready to end their pet from suffering than let their relatives die. Many seem to act more humanely towards their pets than towards other humans. Or is it because pets can't kill themselves?

life is not per defintion good
it depends on who's life it is...
some people just have to be killed and some should live on, i'd say samir A has to die and Seth Putnam should live on

sorry i just don't feel like thinking this thing over deeper. just let some people die...
by the way some very ill people should die too. and some unborns that are unwanted by their mothers.

hmm, why, in your opinion, people are much more ready to end their pet from suffering than let their relatives die. Many seem to act more humanely towards their pets than towards other humans. Or is it because pets can't kill themselves?
Well, most of the time it's that the owners dont want to pay heaps and heaps of money to keep their animals alive, not to mention not being quite so attached to their pet than a friend or relative.
Besides, I was more referring to skinning animals alive for fur, factory farming chickens, pigs, crocodiles, emus, etc in horrible, horrible conditions, animal testing, circus animals, shitty zoos, inhumane slaughter and the general substandard treatment of animals for use and consumption by humans.
Why is denying an animal a normal life, then killing it (sometimes with extreme pain) okay by so many "pro-life" people, but allowing somebody who is suffering to die, discontinuing life support to a person in a persistant vegetative state and aborting a pre first term pregnancy is considered barbaric and murderous?

P.S. I'm not being emotional or trying to be all animal rights activist, I've had enough of that. Change and realisation will occur eventually, perhaps with a bit of help from people like me, but it most certainly wont occur through me crapping on on a forum. Instead, I'm just trying to point out an inconsistancy in many "pro-life" people's arguments, and a flaw in many debates and discussions about the thing that is Life.


Personally, I consider life to be sacred. How can somebody think any less? Life is the be all and end all of a person's everything. Words cant describe it, as 'everything' doesn't give something as immense as Life justice.
However, from a purely removed, objective standpoint, I see nothing wrong with diseases that wipe out much of the human race (it's good for controlling our population and strengthening the gene pool). In addition, abortion, euthanasia, suicide and letting people in a PVS die are issues I am neutral with. What I mean is, I do see the point of view of those who are against it, however I would have an abortion if I was a woman and didn't see it fit to have a child, I would appreciate the right to end my life if I was suffering unbearable physical or mental pain, and I certainly wouldn't want to be kept indefinately in a persistant vegetative state. So, subjectivly, I am for them all, but objectivly they make little significance to society as a whole, so what a stranger does in each situation is beyond my scope of control, conciousness and, in the end, I couldn't care less.

I am against the death sentence. Too many innocent people are condemned to death, and in the end what would happen if they were kept alive in a cell? They might as well be allowed to live out their lives, however miserable they are going to be.

...
Why is denying an animal a normal life, then killing it (sometimes with extreme pain) okay by so many "pro-life" people, but allowing somebody who is suffering to die, discontinuing life support to people in a persistant vegetative state and aborting a pre first term pregnancy is considered barbaric and murderous?
Understood it, just wondered. Didn't have anything to say to your points 'cos I agree with you. Humans (many) often deny that they are animals too. If they'd approve this biological fact, they just might treate other animals better.

This post serves to notify people of my quite significant edit to my previous post.
Doop'''''

http://www.activefactor.com.au/images/beverage_range/mt_franklin_sparkling.jpg

Human Life=bad.

We've managed to screw things up pretty well.

http://n-mind.com/blog/archives/c2.jpg http://n-mind.com/blog/archives/c2.jpg http://n-mind.com/blog/archives/c2.jpg http://n-mind.com/blog/archives/c2.jpg


karorii hafu!