Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Individualism versus Collectivism: The "Right to Life"

05-26-2005, 07:01 AM

31 Male
British
None really
Liberal, libertarian, anti-authoritarian
1: Humans have no inherent right to live and therefore killing is acceptible if it benefits the killer

2: The so-called "right to life" is merely a reciprocal agreement in which we agree to let others live if they do the same

3: We have an inherent right to life that is defined by a duty to avoid willful harm to others

I go for somewhere inbetween these 1st three. I think it's very rare in society that it would be in someone's best interest to kill someone else, either in the short term, but especially in the long term. I prefer to live in a society where this sort of thing doesn't happen too easily, that sets in place an environment where conflict doesn't have to result in the death of any of the parties. To this effect I agree in the ideas of social security, because I don't want to see mass uprisings and revolutions brought about by the starving masses as has happened in the past. I don't think anyone has a 'right' to be comfortable, but I think it's better (cheaper, more practical and more citizenly) to keep them that way than pay a huge security bill in order to deter them from taking matters into their own hands.

05-26-2005, 07:01 AM	#8 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	31 Male British None really Liberal, libertarian, anti-authoritarian 1: Humans have no inherent right to live and therefore killing is acceptible if it benefits the killer 2: The so-called "right to life" is merely a reciprocal agreement in which we agree to let others live if they do the same 3: We have an inherent right to life that is defined by a duty to avoid willful harm to others I go for somewhere inbetween these 1st three. I think it's very rare in society that it would be in someone's best interest to kill someone else, either in the short term, but especially in the long term. I prefer to live in a society where this sort of thing doesn't happen too easily, that sets in place an environment where conflict doesn't have to result in the death of any of the parties. To this effect I agree in the ideas of social security, because I don't want to see mass uprisings and revolutions brought about by the starving masses as has happened in the past. I don't think anyone has a 'right' to be comfortable, but I think it's better (cheaper, more practical and more citizenly) to keep them that way than pay a huge security bill in order to deter them from taking matters into their own hands.