Politics-Ethics Question

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

The exact argument used by Hitler to justify his program of euthanasia. Welcome back!

[/ QUOTE ]
Reductio ad hitlerum
Not to mention it isn't the same thing. Nazi germany murdered people that in their twisted opinion served no purpose. In this scenario it's a decision on whether to take care of someone or not.

If no one cares enough to lift a finger to help the kid why should tax money be used to help it?

[K C]

There are two types of rights - "positive" and "negative." Negative rights are liberties which one would hold naturally without the interference of others, and the burden is upon those who seek to violate it to justify the imposition. The second form, positive rights, is actually a duty to others to provide some sort of benefit or other and the justification becomes to show how such a duty exists.

In this example we are clearly dealing with alleged positive rights, in which it must be shown that others have a duty to provide for this person. When we say someone has a right to life it's one thing to show that we cannot take that life without just cause, it's quite another though to demonstrate that we must take measures which may be beyond our will to provide for it.

We're dealing with the ethical side of the situation of course, and politically one may argue whether or not it fits within the political structure of a given nation. For example, in a democracy whether there is legislation providing for it.

Where we become lost in these questions is to substitute sound argument for emotivism, where we feel as an individual or even a collection of individuals that something should be the case based upon our personal feelings for it. This is purely fallacious though.

The bottom line here is it is extremely difficult to provide even a good argument let alone a sound one to justify the positive right to life. We cannot merely rely on platitudes such as life is intrinsically valuable and so on. In terms of freedom, if a society is to be truly free (which would be a first if one ever really were), then people need to be free to devote thier resources as they see fit.

The discussion here invariably boils down to appeals to sympathy, which is fine. No doubt many will feel sympathy for such an ill fated person and they certainly may want to help, and are free to do so. Others may not, and they must remain free to excerise their own preferences as well.

[Piemaster]

I suppose as a logical continuation of this debate we could ask:

"Should these no limbed people be allowed to reproduce, if their offspring would have 100% chance of also having no limbs? If so, should the government be obliged to look after these children.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is the baby's "right" as a citizen to be taken care of.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Where's he derive this right from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point. No one, not even a baby with no arms, has the right to the involuntary servitude of others.

By the way, the constitution was amended post civil war to outlaw involuntary servitude. Of course this is ignored by the polititians who came later.

[Rotting]

[ QUOTE ]

"..a government Of the people, For the people and BY the people.."

Go ahead and disprove it.

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an atrociously irrelevant quote. You need to understand the definition of "government" and why your use of this quote is non-sequitur.

There are only several federally granted rights to citizens of the United States (see: The Consitution) and "to be provided for" is not one of them. Instead of asking people to disprove it, why don't you take the initiative as the claimant, and prove your assertion.

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose. [ QUOTE ]


The exact argument used by Hitler to justify his program of euthanasia. Welcome back!

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an emotional argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. It's not even an argument. It's just pointing out that you take a course of reasoning that was chosen also by those who supported the euthanasia in the Third Reich.

[ QUOTE ]
Since nearly everyone associates Hitler with evil they associate everything about him with evil. Not everything he came up with was a bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as? Though this is OT, I'd be genuinely interested...

[ QUOTE ]
Euthanizing those who can do nothing but detract from society would be a good thing for society as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

... and presupposes that the well being of society is the highest value there is (or at least higher than the well-being of any singluar human being). Singular well-being has to step back if the well-being of society is in danger. Human beings in themselves have no value, rather, their value is measured inasfar as they can contribute to society.

Yep, that's one way to look at the world. But it has such a [censored] of philosophical implications of which you apparently have only a very dim idea that evey sane person rather not get involved.


[ QUOTE ]
Nothing in this world has a right to life. In this world the weak die off, why should these babies be any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they're of our own kind?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it seems to be ridiculously easy to disprove this point

[/ QUOTE ]

"..a government Of the people, For the people and BY the people.."

Go ahead and disprove it.

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, I'd love to. First what are you trying to prove? Second, define the party known as 'the people'.

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

The exact argument used by Hitler to justify his program of euthanasia. Welcome back!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention it isn't the same thing. Nazi germany murdered people that in their twisted opinion served no purpose. In this scenario it's a decision on whether to take care of someone or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That decision being based on an argument of lacking purpose. Try again.

[ QUOTE ]
If no one cares enough to lift a finger to help the kid why should tax money be used to help it?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, because they're humans and it could very well be me in that spot and, following Kant, or even Peter Singer if you like him more, that's all all the reason anyone should need.
Second, I guess, differing opinions about the status of private vs. "public" support: I would hold that often people don't help because they expect the government to help. So the lack of private support is no argument that noone wants those kiddies to live, or that there would be noone stepping forward if it were clear that govt. wouldn't put forth any kind of support.

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line here is it is extremely difficult to provide even a good argument let alone a sound one to justify the positive right to life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need positive rights here. The negative right to not be harmed (i.e. in extremis: killed, for whatever good) against my will is completely sufficient.

[fretelöo]

Oh, and generally...

[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

how the hell did you come up with such bull anyway? Since when is "serving a purpose" dependent on having arms and legs?!?