I would agree.



Not exactly. The pro-life/pro-death penalty argument is not based on life vs. non-life the way the pro-choice/anti-death penalty argument is. It's based on right to life vs. non-right to life as determined by guilt or innocence. Very rudimentary human behavior that has been somewhat milked out of us by years of civilization and philosophy. In the wild, it was essentially instinct. Someone kills a member of your tribe, you kill him. Eye for an eye. Very basic.

If anything, the pro-choice/anti-death penalty argument is a product of philosophy and is actually completely backwards from unconditoned human nature. It's a construct of society basically. A manufactured social norm.






But why are you entitled to live your life as you wish or make progress? You are not entitled to this by nature unless you have the physical means to make it happen by yourself. You feel that it's moral that you should be able to pursue happiness, correct?

The bottom line is this. The only real law of nature is might makes right. Anything else is based on some sense of morality.

__________________
"I don’t like repeat offenders. I like dead offenders." - Ted Nugent

I did not say I was entitled to that, only that it was good and by good I mean instinctual good as in we all want to live because we are wired that way.

The physical means you imply here are not only physical but also intellectual. There are numerous instance in nature where pray allude or survive attacks not by sheer strength but by other cunning means. So no, morality has nothing to do with it. Practicality yes.

No, everything else is based on a might that is not physical. Morality being a human construct, exists only to the extent that it serves our needs. It does not exist without us, it is not absolute and it is deemed so when it suits us.

__________________

************************************************** *************************
The harder I work, the luckier I get.

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...

Who is deciding who has the right to life and who doesn't though? That's the real question, and the answer is the state. Both acts are state sanctioned murder. The law effectively creates a path to state sanctioned murder. As I have said before, the presumed innocence or guilt of the person does not matter for a number of reasons. So for you to be in favor of the death penalty, a law that allows for state sanctioned, and better yet, state funded murder and also be against abortion claiming that it is state sanctioned murder, makes you a hypocrite. The eye for an eye thing only proves my point. Murder to justify murder essentially is what you're saying. It is quite rudimentary which is why I don't understand how those who are both pro-life and pro-death penalty don't see the hypocritical nature of their positions.

__________________
"The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the disenchantment of the world."
-Weber

"There is no truth. There is only perception."
-Gustave Flaubert

That was my whole point, though. We are wired that way because we are designed to physically manifest it through our own means, not depend on others to give it to us through legislation. By passing legislation to ensure it for all regardless of whether or not they are physically capable, you’re legislating morality. You’re leveling the playing field because you think it’s fair.



And for you to claim that innocence and guilt do not matter in terms of the acceptability of murder makes you equally hypocritical unless you view all murder of any kind to be morally justifiable. I thought we covered this.



Because in natural terms, there is nothing hypocritical about it. It is philosophy that deems it hypocritical. And philosophy is not objective because it can be easily thwarted with more philosophy.

Attempting to use subjective reasoning to state something as objective is futile because someone with the opposite opinion can use the same method and produce a result that is just as correct. As I proved above with your position being equally hypocritical to the one you're picking apart.

I honestly don't see how you can condemn others for not seeing hypocrisy in their position when you are doing the very thing you're condemning them for.

__________________
"I don’t like repeat offenders. I like dead offenders." - Ted Nugent