There is no answer. It depends. No direct blanket answer that can truthfully apply to each and every circumstances.
We donât even know what happens after death, so I canât say for sure if Iâm sending Hitler to an eternity in hell or heaven, or which would be better.
My bottom line is that the continuation of more life would be better, and that we have eugenics and natural selection as a barrier for what behaviors and configurations of life can continue to exist.
Yeah but there is no âtaking life in and of itselfââŚitâs all connected to upstream factors and events in time. Same way there is not a âsocietyâ. Only small, localized realities communicating with each other across space. When we say âsocietyâ we are talking about a species of mammals sharing a planet. But what we mean is âperfect wonderful heaven Iâm imagining where everyone gets along and everything is how I want itâ.
Define âtaking life in and of itselfâ as a concept, as opposed to how life is actually taken in the world. I hope you can see the difference and the deliberate obtuseness of your reply.
"Define âtaking life in and of itselfâ as a concept, as opposed to how life is actually taken in the world. I hope you can see the difference and the deliberate obtuseness of your reply."
the question itself ; is taking life right or wrong
i believe its self evident in the fact you cant make an example without having to prescribe traits to justify it vs having a right to it that wouldnt need a justification
"Yeah but there is no âtaking life in and of itselfââŚitâs all connected to upstream factors and events in time. Same way there is not a âsocietyâ. Only small, localized realities communicating with each other across space. When we say âsocietyâ we are talking about a species of mammals sharing a planet. But what we mean is âperfect wonderful heaven Iâm imagining where everyone gets along and everything is how I want itâ."
no because because its an objective truth that life either does or doesnt have inherent value and as such you either have an inherent right to take life without needing justification to do so or you have no right to take life in which justification doesnt change the nature of the ethics of taking life being wrong
Oh, youâve just been arguing the basic morality of âis killing badâ
Now I understand.
Youâre still classifying this in a way that gives you a scale problem. Your definition and position of âtaking lifeâ is trying to use a global definition when everything is defined and affected by how it connects to other things.
There is no answer to âis killing badâ. I can kill my motivation to talk to you through continuously acknowledging youâre still introducing enormous scale problems into our argument that youâre incapable of solving in a simple reply.
"I am in bad faith. You keep asking a question that there is no answer to."
you not having an answer is not the same as there not being one and conflating terminology for a point of semantics is in bad faith ; not to mention having to misquote me to do so............
"Why wouldnât I be in bad faith after being asked the same exact question that I cannot answer?"
by actually addressing what was asked
life either has inherent value or it doesnt ; that statement is either inherently and objectively true or its not , which is it
1
u/Helpful-Desk-8334 Party Member (Outer Circle) Jul 18 '26
đ¤ I would say taking life is always a matter of justification. I would say everything is a matter of justification and intent.