The right to life. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By TheEngineer
#14704768
On the subject of state-sanctioned killings of persons convicted according to law and after due process:

Assumptions:
1) All persons have a self-evident inalienable right to life.
2) All persons have an overarching right to exercise their rights so long as they do not unduly hinder or prevent the same of others.

Scenario:
- Person A unduly kills Person B and/or Person A is convicted, according to law and after due process, of unduly killing Person B. Having unduly prevented the right to life of Person B, does it follow that Person A's overarching right to exercise the right to life is diminished?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14704770
- Person A unduly kills Person B and/or Person A is convicted, according to law and after due process, of unduly killing Person B. Having unduly prevented the right to life of Person B, does it follow that Person A's overarching right to exercise the right to life is diminished?


No. This does not follow from your assumptions. It all depends on what you mean by "life", a term you have not defined.
By TheEngineer
#14704775
Saeko wrote:It all depends on what you mean by "life", a term you have not defined.


Okay.

Definitions:
- Life - distinguishing it from liberty and property, life is simply the state of being alive.
- Liberty - distinguishing it from life and property, liberty is the ability to live life how one wishes.
- Property - distinguishing it from life and liberty, property consists of physical material for living life how one wishes.

Narrowed assumptions:
1) All persons have a self-evident inalienable right to be alive.
2) All persons have a meta-right to exercise their rights except when such exercise hinders or prevents the same of another person.

Thought:
- If one person kills another, does the killer's meta-right to live still stand?
("live" = "exercise the right to be alive")
("kill" = "prevent another from living")
("living" = "the gerund of 'live'")
User avatar
By Saeko
#14704788
TheEngineer wrote:Okay.

Definitions:
- Life - distinguishing it from liberty and property, life is simply the state of being alive.
- Liberty - distinguishing it from life and property, liberty is the ability to live life how one wishes.
- Property - distinguishing it from life and liberty, property consists of physical material for living life how one wishes.

Narrowed assumptions:
1) All persons have a self-evident inalienable right to be alive.
2) All persons have a meta-right to exercise their rights except when such exercise hinders or prevents the same of another person.

Thought:
- If one person kills another, does the killer's meta-right to live still stand?

("live" = "exercise the right to be alive")
("kill" = "prevent another from living")
("living" = "the gerund of 'live'")


What right is the killer exercising when he chooses to kill someone?
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14704982
If your willing to suspend convicted criminals' right to liberty by imprisoning them and their right to property by fines or confiscation, then why not suspend their tight to life?
#14705028
TheEngineer wrote:On the subject of state-sanctioned killings of persons convicted according to law and after due process:

Assumptions:
1) All persons have a self-evident inalienable right to life.
2) All persons have an overarching right to exercise their rights so long as they do not unduly hinder or prevent the same of others.

Scenario:
- Person A unduly kills Person B and/or Person A is convicted, according to law and after due process, of unduly killing Person B. Having unduly prevented the right to life of Person B, does it follow that Person A's overarching right to exercise the right to life is diminished?


When said party unduly hinders or prevents the exercise of a self-evident inalienable right of others the consequences as attributed to these acts would be dependent on the legal system in place.

If that is what it takes for them to admit it the[…]

America: Canada's toilet... No, Canadians are t[…]

Do we owe reparations to LGBT?

There sure is a difference between dancing and bu[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Falwell leveraged cable television. Nothing preve[…]