How do we teach the value of human life?

[StruckingFuggle]

What argument? There is no argument, as you have put forth no argument in support of your claim, a claim that is wrong by definition.

... No, wrong or right it's neither "by definition".

[collegestudent22]

Ummmm.... yes, it is Fuggle.

It is wrong by definition. There are many people who have not committed any unlawful acts nor will they do so in the future.... which is one version of the definition....

[Deacon]

Yeah, Fuggly, it is:

There is no such thing as an "innocent".

[StruckingFuggle]

Ummmm.... yes, it is Fuggle.

It is wrong by definition. There are many people who have not committed any unlawful acts nor will they do so in the future.... which is one version of the definition....

Yes, but that's also not the sense he meant or used the word in.

[mikehendo]

to insist upon a simple definition for a complex term is the sign if a simple mind. It isn't thier fault that they can't grasp it fuggle. I actually kind of pity them.

Innocence is one of those workds like holocaust that has lost all meaning because simple minded people apply it to just about anything they want.

If you do want to get away from complex meanings, lets go and throw out liberty, equality, and freedom while we are at it. Heck, lets throw out philosophy.

[Spero]

Hendo, you are making a very easy distinction complicated. There is no way a person who is going about his life is guilty of anything remotely relevant if he were to get shot by a random psychotic bastard why shopping for Christmas gifts. I couldn't care less what his past wrongs may have been and neither should society because he is not the problem at that moment, the psychotic bastard is the problem. You are essentially telling us that everyone deserves to die by a gunshot to the head because none of us are innocent of anything. You have the wrong idea about right and wrong, innocence and guilt.

[mikehendo]

I am not saying that just because someone is cannot be innocent that they deserve to die. Just that there is no such thing as an innocent. Granted I should have capitalized that i to make it "Innocent," but in a forum where editing is not allowed after a short period of time, that was not an option.

Does anyone who gets killed by a random gunman necessarily "deserve" to die in that manner? No. However that isnt what this discussion has become about.

And I sent him a PM to appologize, because I didnt notice his post when I posted my most recent one, stupid inability to edit again.

mikehendo, is a 1 day old child not innocent? What have they done to make them not innocent?

However, that depends upon your view of innocence, as does everything in the entire thread. It can be argued that children inherit the sins of thier parents.

Sure way back in the days of John Locke, it was believed that children were born tabula rasa (with a blank slate). However, that concept has been abandonned in favor of nature in the nature v nurture debate. Not only is someone a product of thier environment, they are also a product of thier genes. As a product of thier genes, thier innocence becomes corrupted before it even has a chance to develop. But there is also the fatal flaw to innocence, that being that they are human.

However, I personally do not believe that innocence is something that can be humanly achieved. That doesnt mean though, that it is wrong to strive for it. innocence is like perfection, they are both godly.

[NorthernComfort]

However, that depends upon your view of innocence, as does everything in the entire thread. It can be argued that children inherit the sins of thier parents.

I don't think you can rationally argue that, unless your argument hinges upon religious beliefs or a very liberal interpretation of the word sin.

As a product of thier genes, thier innocence becomes corrupted before it even has a chance to develop.

How does genetic makeup corrupt a persons innocence? Once again, I don't think this can be rationally argued without diving into some pretty extremist religious beliefs or perhaps eugenics.

But there is also the fatal flaw to innocence, that being that they are human.

Once again, we're talking about some pretty out there religious beliefs or philosophies.

However, I personally do not believe that innocence is something that can be humanly achieved. That doesnt mean though, that it is wrong to strive for it. innocence is like perfection, they are both godly.

More religion-inspired ramblings.

If people are discussing things rationally and with their ear turned toward the rule of law, try to leave religion out of it. Or at least be aware when your views on a subject are derived from religious beliefs, and accept that other people that do not subscribe to your personal religious beliefs probably aren't interested.

Sincerely,
An Atheist Who Follows The Dictionary For Definitions Of Innocent And Guilty, And Suggests You Do, Too

[adciv]

Sure way back in the days of John Locke, it was believed that children were born tabula rasa (with a blank slate). However, that concept has been abandonned in favor of nature in the nature v nurture debate. Not only is someone a product of thier environment, they are also a product of thier genes. As a product of thier genes, thier innocence becomes corrupted before it even has a chance to develop. But there is also the fatal flaw to innocence, that being that they are human.

Sorry, but I'm going to call bullshit on this. Genes do not predetermine our actions and it is not so simple to say that because someones father was a mass murderer that they will be a mass murderer or even have a tendency to be one due to genetics.

Everything we do (within the realm of what we are discussing here) is done with conscious intent. We have to option to do or not do it. We may, may, have some slight inclination to one or the other at birth but that does not mean that someone does not consciously choose to pull the trigger or not and have many chances to not before doing something like this. To say "My genes made me do it" is unscientific, completely wrong, a complete cop out of personal responsibility and an invitation to go back to the 1920's view of eugenics. This would lead to us prejudging people based on what their parents did and would really only lead to punishing children of people who have committed crimes on the basis that they may have an inclination to do so, regardless of what they would actually do or have done.

[StruckingFuggle]

Sorry, but I'm going to call bullshit on this. Genes do not predetermine our actions and it is not so simple to say that because someones father was a mass murderer that they will be a mass murderer or even have a tendency to be one due to genetics.

And sorry, but I need to counter that you can't entirely prove that (so you have to say they very much probably do not). Hm. Gasp and shock, I'll contribute something positive to an argument: given the findings of a large number of twin studies - how identical twins, even when they're adopted and raised apart, correlate (usually far more) strongly than fraternal twins (raised both together and apart) on a wide variety of abilities and proclivities - you can't successfully argue that they genes don't contribute to behavior at all, unless you want to argue that ability doesn't influence action and there's no such thing as proclivity.

Everything we do (within the realm of what we are discussing here) is done with conscious intent.

How does insanity factor into your argument? Are you discounting it, or just saying that it doesn't exist? Or making the argument that insane rationalizations and thought processes are still significantly conscious enough to not change anything?

[adciv]

And sorry, but I need to counter that you can't entirely prove that (so you have to say they very much probably do not). Hm. Gasp and shock, I'll contribute something positive to an argument: given the findings of a large number of twin studies - how identical twins, even when they're adopted and raised apart, correlate (usually far more) strongly than fraternal twins (raised both together and apart) on a wide variety of abilities and proclivities - you can't successfully argue that they genes don't contribute to behavior at all, unless you want to argue that ability doesn't influence action and there's no such thing as proclivity.

A) See second paragraph.
B) False Dichotomy (Weren't you just complaining about this in another thread?)
Regardless of whether or not it has some influence on us, what our parents do does not predetermine what we do. WE STILL MAKE THE DECISION. It is our conscious decision to do something, not a sleeper program in our genes that dictates every action we make. Genes may influence us some, but they do not dictate what we do.

[StruckingFuggle]

B) False Dichotomy (Weren't you just complaining about this in another thread?)

Dichotomy? I thought I proposed a trichotomy that's a functional dichotomy... because while there's the option of it's ALL nurture, I don't really believe that that's possible - so functionally, it's either nature or some mixture of nature and nurture. I don't believe you can fully prove the former, and given the evidence I don't see how it can be anything other than those two. So I'm not sure how false it is, if anything then it's a true trichotomy unless you have some sort of fourth option like It's All Been Written By God and a way to differentiate it enough that genes just aren't God's way of carrying out his written will. So... yeah.

Regardless of whether or not it has some influence on us, what our parents do does not predetermine what we do. WE STILL MAKE THE DECISION. It is our conscious decision to do something, not a sleeper program in our genes that dictates every action we make. Genes may influence us some, but they do not dictate what we do.

Then what does? What shapes what decisions you'll make? How do you come to ascribe values to various actions and possibly 'potential outcomes' and thus make the decision of what actions you will and won't take?

[NorthernComfort]

Here. I am consciously deciding to make this post. I offer myself and my own thoughts as proof. If you can prove to me that it was in fact my genetic makeup that led me to make this post, I will concede that my personal free will is nullified by my genetic makeup.

If you can't prove that, than you can't prove anything concerning eugenics. For eugenics to be positively proven means that you need more than evidence of similarities between twins. It requires you to actually disprove free will, because the two cannot coexist. Good luck on that one, because all evidence suggest otherwise.

[StruckingFuggle]

Here. I am consciously deciding to make this post. I offer myself and my own thoughts as proof. If you can prove to me that it was in fact my genetic makeup that led me to make this post, I will concede that my personal free will is nullified by my genetic makeup.

You're not offering anything, really. You've got no explanation put forth to say why you make that choice.

If you can't prove that, than you can't prove anything concerning eugenics. For eugenics to be positively proven means that you need more than evidence of similarities between twins. It requires you to actually disprove free will, because the two cannot coexist. Good luck on that one, because all evidence suggest otherwise.

How're you defining eugenics, here? I thought it also could apply to selective breeding for genetic / phenotype strength by keeping bad genetic conditions out of the pool (like propensity towards caner, or sickle-celling outside of areas with lots of malaria), while encouraging more of the offpsring to have desirable genetic traits.

[NorthernComfort]

You're not offering anything, really. You've got no explanation put forth to say why you make that choice.

Exactly. All we know about free will is that we have it. Good luck disproving it.

How're you defining eugenics, here? I thought it also could apply to selective breeding for genetic / phenotype strength by keeping bad genetic conditions out of the pool (like propensity towards caner, or sickle-celling outside of areas with lots of malaria), while encouraging more of the offpsring to have desirable genetic traits.

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Our free will has nothing to do with things we have no control over. If you want to get into eugenics and free will, maybe start a new thread?