Does every living thing have *a right* to exist?
Since there was some confusion due to the wording in the question, this debate has been moved to:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_it_wrong_for_humans_to_kill_something_till_extinction
But since people keep posting here, I'll leave this debate open.
Your choice.
Ofcourse
Side Score: 5
|
 |
there are no absolutes
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
The Swiss clearly think so: http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/10/18/ Side: Ofcourse
First off, by who's standards? If you mean anything that has brought the thing into being, god, nature, then yes, obviously. Something of nature permits the exitance, therefor naturally, it has a right to exist by natural means. Basically, if it exists, even thoughts it would seem, it has a right to. Also, in saying this, I am supporting "there are no absolutes", but anything that exists has a right to... Side: yes
1
point
|
Okay, I was just going to say, "everything has the right to exist, except spiders, because I hate them." But Bradf0rd has me all thinking in circles. Okay. So then if everything that does exist, inherently does then have a right to do such, then everything, as Bradf0rd says, has that right. This is a very philisophical arguement, and a very good one. However, by that exact same arguement, (and it is the same) one could say that I am able to end something's life, therefore, "by nature," I have that right. That is the same arguement, and so as I said, it's a circle. The correct answer is no. Nothing has any rights, because rights are an arbitrary thing that we made up. Just because something does exist has no bearing. Does does not = should. Rights are a figment of our imagination. A good figment, but just imaginary none the less. Side: there are no absolutes
Not just you, but everyone on this side assumes that people, who did not ask to live nor bring in the order to make life, decide what thing has a right to exist. It is not a humans place to dictate what has a right by nature, to exist or not. Any living thing is first playing by natural law, to decide. Side: yes
i never said we have a right do dictate. i said that we are in the same boat as everything else, and lucky for us, our intelligence gives us more power over the lower animals. Do we really have a right? i don't know where exactly rights come from, so no, we don't. Unless God comes out of nowhere and says "fish our the ones who should decide who lives and who dies" i'm fine with humans controlling everything. if anything, i believe that the most logical answer would be "nothing has a right to live, because we have no way of proving it does". and since humans want to eat lower animals and hunt and shit, i say let 'em. no reason not to really. Side: there are no absolutes
1
point
If we follow darwinian evolutionary theory, one of the underlying prepositions is that everything is Inequal. There is natural variation in traits which means that some individuals are more adept at surviving than others. Do the disadvantaged animals then tout equality and egalitarianism? Life is a privilage struggled for by the skill of the individual. There is no such thing as a right to existance. Side: there are no absolutes
1
point
Then why would a person, who believes in evolution, ever want to put laws in place that would only benefit the disadvantaged? We need to put Darwinism back into society and let stupid people naturally die off. This would help reduce global warming. Side: there are no absolutes
0
points
0
points
|
