BehindTheMask Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Are my rights harmed when a shark eats me? 1) If I had a natural right not to be harmed(or to life), a shark(or some other predator) would violate this right by eating me. 2) The shark does not violate any right I have by eating me[b](because he is not a moral agent).[/b]* 3) So I do not have a natural right not to be harmed(or to life). This argument was taken from my Philosophy professor, which is modified from an argument made by Rolston. *My addition, for clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think I'd care more about killing the shark, because Not Getting Eaten By Large Fish > Philosophical Pondering. Oh, and just to add another question with an obvious answer: Are the shark's rights violated if you kill it in order to prevent it from killing you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARKPLANT RISING Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 The shark was doing what he must do to survive. I say he didn't violate your rights. If the restaurant serves a starving man an alive oyster about to be fried upon butter, does the oyster have his rights violated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 So basically, by using one instance of one's rights not being violated when, it makes your rights nonexistent all the time? There is a word/phrase for this but it's slipped my mind, atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted January 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Revolver Amethyst' timestamp='1294127687' post='4910793'] I think I'd care more about killing the shark, because Not Getting Eaten By Large Fish > Philosophical Pondering. Oh, and just to add another question with an obvious answer: Are the shark's rights violated if you kill it in order to prevent it from killing you? [/quote] Thats not the question I asked, Get on topic. [quote name='=Evangelion=' timestamp='1294132830' post='4910851'] The shark was doing what he must do to survive. I say he didn't violate your rights. If the restaurant serves a starving man an alive oyster about to be fried upon butter, does the oyster have his rights violated? [/quote] But why isn't he violating my rights. If another man where to kill me, would he not violate my rights? [quote name='Legend Zero' timestamp='1294148883' post='4911039'] So basically, by using one instance of one's rights not being violated when, it makes your rights nonexistent all the time? There is a word/phrase for this but it's slipped my mind, atm. [/quote] Okay, let's assume he doesn't violate my rights. If another man where to kill me, would he not violate my right? Why should there be a difference between the two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Man =/= Shark A man knows the rules of society and that human life is to be valued, while a shark does not. Just like it is murder if a man does it, but not when a shark attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARKPLANT RISING Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='BehindTheMask' timestamp='1294159429' post='4911206']But why isn't he violating my rights. If another man where to kill me, would he not violate my rights? Okay, let's assume he doesn't violate my rights. If another man where to kill me, would he not violate my right? Why should there be a difference between the two? [/quote] To the first question-My idea is that the shark needs to eat to live. Just like we eat crops and cattle meat and that stuff. As I already mentioned the food being eaten is being used to support the rights of another life form, which means that the death was certainly justified as means of living. Either way one would die, you or the shark. To the second-In the case of a shark eating you he did what he must do. On the other hand, the man is most likely killing you just for a grudge, or something simular. Holding grudges doesn't violate rights of the attacking man, and the attacker could have lived without killing you. Therefore, killing more than he is supposed to, he is violating your rights. In short, I believe that the difference between a killing that doesn't or does violate rights is the difference between a necesarry hunt or a cold-blooded murder. Of course you're dead either way in the end, but still. Just IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 I don't think you have a natural right to not be harmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Legend Zero' timestamp='1294162943' post='4911267'] Man =/= Shark A man knows the rules of society and that human life is to be valued, while a shark does not. Just like it is murder if a man does it, but not when a shark attacks. [/quote] Why do you draw the line at species? If I have a natural right not to be harmed, then the shark must also do it when he kills me. There is no difference between man and shark when they do the same action. [quote name='=Evangelion=' timestamp='1294180484' post='4911818'] To the first question-My idea is that the shark needs to eat to live. Just like we eat crops and cattle meat and that stuff. As I already mentioned the food being eaten is being used to support the rights of another life form, which means that the death was certainly justified as means of living. Either way one would die, you or the shark. To the second-In the case of a shark eating you he did what he must do. On the other hand, the man is most likely killing you just for a grudge, or something simular. Holding grudges doesn't violate rights of the attacking man, and the attacker could have lived without killing you. Therefore, killing more than he is supposed to, he is violating your rights. In short, I believe that the difference between a killing that doesn't or does violate rights is the difference between a necesarry hunt or a cold-blooded murder. Of course you're dead either way in the end, but still. Just IMO. [/quote] Part 1: A shark primarily consumes on fish and other sea-critters. He does not have to eat me in order to survive, their are plenty of other fish in the sea(literally). Part 2: Let's take for example the case of a rational Cannibal. He only chooses to partake in human flesh only. He murders you and eats every part of you. He then buries you and goes out and kills another person, eats every part of them and buries them. He then goes out and kills a third person, but only eats half, as he then is full. Does he violate the third mans rights? Since, he did kill more than he is supposed to (in every case) he should be violating the rights. But he needs to eat. [quote name='GenzoTheHarpist' timestamp='1294185633' post='4912011'] I don't think you have a natural right to not be harmed. [/quote] Explain please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 You don't have a right to anything, naturally. They're added to better an individual's experience in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='BehindTheMask' timestamp='1294335193' post='4915631'] [b]Why do you draw the line at species?[/b] [u]If I have a natural right not to be harmed, then the shark must also do it when he kills me.[/u] [i]There is no difference between man and shark when they do the same action.[/i] [/quote] @bold: I draw the line their because that is the reason for one counting as harming your rights and the other doesn't. @underlined: Sharks rarely attack for food, IIRC. They do it because they feel threatened...therefore you (the person) started the conflict, which results in you dying. @italics: Yep no difference, except for the fact that they are different species and that they could possibly have different reasons. Another example would be when someone breaks into another's home and attacks them...you can kill that person in self defense and not be blamed. The attacker gave up his rights when he violated yours, the same can be said when you're splashing around in the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 [quote name='BehindTheMask' timestamp='1294335193' post='4915631'] Explain please. [/quote] Why would you? Animals kill each other constantly. Clearly there is no natural inclination towards the right to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARKPLANT RISING Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 [quote name='BehindTheMask' timestamp='1294335193' post='4915631']Part 1: A shark primarily consumes on fish and other sea-critters. He does not have to eat me in order to survive, their are plenty of other fish in the sea(literally). [/quote] By your logic only men have rights. Hell no, most people would say that killing hundreds of dogs for fun is a bad thing. It's a naturally necesarry killing. ...Didn't I already say that? It doesn't matter whether it's the fish or you being killed, being eaten isn't a violation of right. [quote name='BehindTheMask' timestamp='1294335193' post='4915631'] Part 2: Let's take for example the case of a rational Cannibal. He only chooses to partake in human flesh only. He murders you and eats every part of you. He then buries you and goes out and kills another person, eats every part of them and buries them. He then goes out and kills a third person, but only eats half, as he then is full. Does he violate the third mans rights? Since, he did kill more than he is supposed to (in every case) he should be violating the rights. But he needs to eat. Explain please. [/quote] Well, I suppose that never happens in the natural food chain. Sharks can eat as much as they want, then live upon that for weeks. They don't make leftovers. In that case (aka all cases in natural life) they wouldn't violate the rights of the eaten life forms. And here, it's not so. Most likely a cannibal is unsocialized and barabarian; but in that case he would rather eat up everything, making this situation impossible. That means almost definately he's perfectly socialized and yet being a cannibal, which leads us to the conclusion that he's an idiot. I personally think the 3rd person's rights were violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted January 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 [quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1294345785' post='4915935'] You don't have a right to anything, naturally. They're added to better an individual's experience in life. [/quote] Explain more. [quote name='Legend Zero' timestamp='1294346963' post='4915968'] @bold: I draw the line their because that is the reason for one counting as harming your rights and the other doesn't. @underlined: Sharks rarely attack for food, IIRC. They do it because they feel threatened...therefore you (the person) started the conflict, which results in you dying. @italics: Yep no difference, except for the fact that they are different species and that they could possibly have different reasons. Another example would be when someone breaks into another's home and attacks them...you can kill that person in self defense and not be blamed. The attacker gave up his rights when he violated yours, the same can be said when you're splashing around in the water. [/quote] Why do only humans get the right though? What makes humans special? I had meant that if the shark kills me, he also destroys my right. The same thing with a man, he would also destroy my right if he killed me. What is special about being human? Why can only humans nullify the rights? [quote name='GenzoTheHarpist' timestamp='1294381278' post='4917162'] Why would you? Animals kill each other constantly. Clearly there is no natural inclination towards the right to life. [/quote] Just because there is no examples of natural rights in nature does not mean it does not exist. For example, 2+2=4 does not exist in nature, but it still exists. [quote name='=Evangelion=' timestamp='1294392583' post='4917279'] By your logic only men have rights. Hell no, most people would say that killing hundreds of dogs for fun is a bad thing. It's a naturally necesarry killing. ...Didn't I already say that? It doesn't matter whether it's the fish or you being killed, being eaten isn't a violation of right. Well, I suppose that never happens in the natural food chain. Sharks can eat as much as they want, then live upon that for weeks. They don't make leftovers. In that case (aka all cases in natural life) they wouldn't violate the rights of the eaten life forms. And here, it's not so. Most likely a cannibal is unsocialized and barabarian; but in that case he would rather eat up everything, making this situation impossible. That means almost definately he's perfectly socialized and yet being a cannibal, which leads us to the conclusion that he's an idiot. I personally think the 3rd person's rights were violated. [/quote] But don't I have a right to live? I should be able to live life like I want to, without violating others rights, and without my rights being violated. That is why we have laws, to punish others for breaking these rights(not only murder, but theft, etc). Why is it that only the third person's rights violated? All three died? If we conclude that we should only take what is necessary, then most of the world violates the rights of the earth. We, therefore, are violating the earth's rights everytime we do something that is not necessary for survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 [quote name='BehindTheMask' timestamp='1294409737' post='4917512'] Explain more. [/quote] A shark killing me is like a man killing me, since both are ultimately victims of pre-determinism. I don't think we should think about the violation of rights, but rather the upholding of them, if you get what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Neither the shark nor the human have rights to protect them. If the shark attacks the human, the human must find a way to survive the deadly situation. You dont just get these rights, you have to earn them by surviving which is why humans are a step above other species because we know how to fight them back. Again survival of the fittest.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARKPLANT RISING Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 [quote name='tonymann' timestamp='1294454794' post='4919053'] which is why humans are a step above other species[/quote] wut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Um instead of "Wut" how about you ask what your confused about in my statement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARKPLANT RISING Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 It's called internet logic that trolls people who think mankind is so epic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Humans are miles beyond most species beyond other species when it comes to thinking, which is the most useful trait in this era. Then when it wasn't yet fully developed and as valuable, we were great runners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 We only have rights that are observed by other humans, animals cannot observe those rights, so no, you don't [i]really[/i] have a right to live. The right to live is just something thought up and observed by humanity to further our species, or some sh** like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I think I speak for all of us when I say that we are not, at the moment, immortal, and as such to claim the right to live forever unharmed and to complain when this turns out not to be the case is idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Culpa Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Really? You're in the middle of a shark attack and you're thinking about the moral ethics of sharks? I salute you, you brave moronic soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 [quote name='Felix Culpa' timestamp='1295077428' post='4935450'] Really? You're in the middle of a shark attack and you're thinking about the moral ethics of sharks? I salute you, you brave moronic soul. [/quote] You're stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.