- #1
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 988
- 4
I am about to present a view that many people will not like for various reasons, and may even find downright disgusting. I believe, nonetheless, that what I am claiming is fundamentally true and unerlies everything our society does. Gut reactions and beliefs will not have any sway in this thread, I am writting this, because I want someone to tell me where my reasoning lacks, or else accept the truth that I now believe.
The Claims
The fundamental claims that I am making are
1. There is no such thing as 'Sanctity of Life'
2. 'Right to life' etc is purely determined by an organisms relation to 'our' society and as such isn't really a 'right' at all, but a designation.
With these claims in mind, I also wish to argue that arguments based on the 'right to life' and the 'sanctity of life' are bunk from the outset.
The Reasoning
Sanctity of life, from nature
I will say it out right: To live, is to be sentenced to death. To live, is to kill other life. It is self contradictory to call life sanctimonious when in its very nature it destroys its own sanctity.
Life is not special above and beyond the specialness of an atom. It is more complex, more impressive etc, but it is no more sacred, or santimonious than molecules. There is nothing that life does, which cannot be done with chemicals. Life is chemical. Chemicals aren't sanctimonious, neither is life. There is no sharp line between life and non-life. Life is not special.
Sanctity of Life, from society
People preach about the sanctity most of their life, never seeing their hypocrisy. Save this animal, save that tree, save whatever fad organism you want, but make sure you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. To live, is to kill. Kill or be killed. If we wish to stay alive (maintaining our 'right to life' ), we have to eat. We eat cows, we eat sheep, we eat carrots, we eat to keep our ever so important right to life alive.
Oh sure, become a vegetarian... how righteous thou art...so what? We stil have to do our best to kill ever viral infection we encounter, ever bacterial infection we get, every mosquito which carries Malaria... and we do all of that without ever realising that we are contradicting our own 'Sanctit of Life' ideals. They are all threatening to kill us...not because they are evil, or because they 'Aren't enlightened to the sanctity of life principle', but simply because this is how life works. Life, just it. It is a chemical, reacting. Following the path of least resistance through the swamps of evolution. There is only one rule when it comes to 'Right to life', and that is '"MY" life is more important than anything.'
There is no such thing as Sanctity of Life.
Recap
Notice, that the above two sections are only arguing against the conception of a 'Sanctity of life', and I have not said anything about how we 'Should' interact without environment, and other life. I am merely trying to make my point that the higher order importance placed upon life over everything else in this universe is unjustified, and essentially false. Life is not special. It's just like everything else.
(edited to improve ease of reading. Broken into two primary points.)
The Claims
The fundamental claims that I am making are
1. There is no such thing as 'Sanctity of Life'
2. 'Right to life' etc is purely determined by an organisms relation to 'our' society and as such isn't really a 'right' at all, but a designation.
With these claims in mind, I also wish to argue that arguments based on the 'right to life' and the 'sanctity of life' are bunk from the outset.
The Reasoning
Sanctity of life, from nature
I will say it out right: To live, is to be sentenced to death. To live, is to kill other life. It is self contradictory to call life sanctimonious when in its very nature it destroys its own sanctity.
Life is not special above and beyond the specialness of an atom. It is more complex, more impressive etc, but it is no more sacred, or santimonious than molecules. There is nothing that life does, which cannot be done with chemicals. Life is chemical. Chemicals aren't sanctimonious, neither is life. There is no sharp line between life and non-life. Life is not special.
Sanctity of Life, from society
People preach about the sanctity most of their life, never seeing their hypocrisy. Save this animal, save that tree, save whatever fad organism you want, but make sure you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. To live, is to kill. Kill or be killed. If we wish to stay alive (maintaining our 'right to life' ), we have to eat. We eat cows, we eat sheep, we eat carrots, we eat to keep our ever so important right to life alive.
Oh sure, become a vegetarian... how righteous thou art...so what? We stil have to do our best to kill ever viral infection we encounter, ever bacterial infection we get, every mosquito which carries Malaria... and we do all of that without ever realising that we are contradicting our own 'Sanctit of Life' ideals. They are all threatening to kill us...not because they are evil, or because they 'Aren't enlightened to the sanctity of life principle', but simply because this is how life works. Life, just it. It is a chemical, reacting. Following the path of least resistance through the swamps of evolution. There is only one rule when it comes to 'Right to life', and that is '"MY" life is more important than anything.'
There is no such thing as Sanctity of Life.
Recap
Notice, that the above two sections are only arguing against the conception of a 'Sanctity of life', and I have not said anything about how we 'Should' interact without environment, and other life. I am merely trying to make my point that the higher order importance placed upon life over everything else in this universe is unjustified, and essentially false. Life is not special. It's just like everything else.
(edited to improve ease of reading. Broken into two primary points.)