The Value of Life

[Unveiled Artist]

I have to get this off my chest. I congrads if you took time to read this. Thank you.

Okay. You all know my view. We ALL have the right to live. That is our last right (just as death row people have their last meal) and no one has the moral and ethical (not talking about legal-I disagree with legal decisions for murdering anyone) right to do so.

My point: Why do others judge based on behavior, intent, and age, who deserves to die and who does not? What (or Who, if you like) gives us the rights to do this

If you say it is legal, that doesn't exclude the fact that people made up this legal system; it doesn't exist alone. Who or What gave people the right to kill?

Theme: This thread is sharing the value of life from many religions and worldviews and basiclly, how I feel about it in general.

Here is what I do not understand: If we have a certain worldview or religion and we say something that contradicts that worldview or religion, how does the latter override the former?

The Law1: The law seems to value life to some extent. In death row, people go through appeal process over and over and evidence is looked at repeatedly for years before a final decision between more than one person to commit that person to death. (I unfortunetly and coinsedently saw on T.V. pop up "stories of death row". I'm glad I didn't have nightmeres. Being around murderers is one thing. Watching a human get killed is another)

A view worldviews and religions worldviews.

The Law2: It seems the law values life to an extent. They don't just kick people off the curb as soon as the person commits the crime. There is some hope.

Since there are many non religious worldviews, I guess I'll say those anti-DP maybe few and in between.

Religious (Ones I know of)

Buddhism believes fundamentally in the cycle of birth and re-birth (Samsara) and teaches that if capital punishment is administered it will have compromising effects on the souls of both offender and the punisher in future incarnations. Creating karma.

Paganism (What I practice): To the point. All life is sacred. We're not just a bunch of atoms put together (context please)

Catholicism: (Which I will always defend):

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary. —Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999

No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Weirdly enough, the other denominations seem to be varied in position. No one values life itself? or are we defined by our actions?

That's my conclusion. In America, in couple religions, seem like we are defined by our actions. Who we are is what we do, we say. That is not true. I can take someone's life right now, and that is not who I am it was something I stupidly decided to do. It was a deliberate choice to which I should:

A have a chance to amend my actions
Have a chance to get it squared away with my God (in scenario)
Have a chance to repent
Have a chance to change my life after my sentence is up

Example

Many people with mental illnesses suffer still and doctors may not yet find the cause. They help them anyway.

This is not different than murderers. If someone is on death row and are told "they are beyond redemption" that's like syaing the mental illness is beyond curable; we will not help. Yet, the latter, they kill (since there is no "redemption" or treatement according to the law not the person on death row and the former, treated.

Both are human beings. Both. Both need help, treatment, maybe religious counseling (as I seen in the mental health rehab I went to and jails I visited). I was a part of the system. I experienced what it is like to be in the system. I am glad I am in a different section of the legal system but it still haunts me nonetheless. Of course, if I were to see dead bodies all the time, rapist, murderers, etc.. like my friend saw then I would have a different impression on how I see criminal behaviors but their lives? My emotions do not trumpt my morals and beliefs.

Explain to me. If we say we have morals, a religion, a faith, how can our opinions about life trumps what our faith says about it?

For example, given the Catholic position above, why would a Catholic be against life (based on reason) but for Christ. Thats like believing in the Jews of that time puting Christ to death. How could a pagan say he worships the Goddess but spits on the very Earth who She is? How could one say they are a Buddhist if they value death over life? Why the duality? Skip it.

When someone says, based on reason, they want someone dead I turn that around and say "so you want people to kill you if you kill others."

"Well, if that is the consequence."

"That means, you just give up? You don't want to change your life."

"Now that I am here and been here for years, what is the point?"

We have missionaries that can help.
We have treatements if you feel you need them.
We have ways to live a rehabiliated life until you are free of your sentence
We have ways you can talk to your family (limited ways)
We have ways that you have the right to practice your faith

We have ways. But do we use them? The appeals process takes a long time. It's not overnight. I am sure many people who make the law do not do so haphazzardly. I just disagree with the results of their creation.

That's America for you.

 

[BSM1]

Not sure I get your point, but if you are saying the right to live supersedes everything else than how do you protect the rights of innocent victims of lethal crimes? If the only way to stop the Oregon CC killer was to take his life before he took the life of others (thus violating their right to live) wouldn't you think that would be necessary? Suppose if you were in that classroom and you were next. Then suppose you had the choice of you dying or him dying, which do you think you would choose? Unfortunately we do not live in a Disney movie, there are always tough choices to be made.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not sure I get your point, but if you are saying the right to live supersedes everything else than how do you protect the rights of innocent victims of lethal crimes? If the only way to stop the Oregon CC killer was to take his life before he took the life of others (thus violating their right to live) wouldn't you think that would be necessary? Suppose if you were in that classroom and you were next. Then suppose you had the choice of you dying or him dying, which do you think you would choose? Unfortunately we do not live in a Disney movie, there are always tough choices to be made.

My point is. what do we judge who should live by age, intent, and behavior? Who has the right to do this? My theme was giving my general view of taking lives and other religious and worldview perspectives.

Yes. That too. The right to live supersedes everything else. I was also asking if someone holds a religious worldview or morals and their opinions reflect the opposite, how does that work out? (I tried to do this in colors.. So I'm just rephrase).

We can protect anyone who kills others by...

There are missionaries that help killers change their ways to a moral understanding (say God) to where their mindset hopefully changes.

If they are in need of treatements or counseling (especially if they feel they need it and/or suffering from illnesses) that's a way to help.

In group homes and specific housing they have a rehabilitation center where each person has to "report to" and learn to find work (which the county is kind of corrupt in implementing it appropriately).... but the intent is that a lot of murderers within the system I was in and people who commited crimes in their past, are helped.

Unfortunely, they place these places in the back of warehouses and out of the scenes of the public. It reconfirms their being "things" or not good people and a lot of eople who have mental health issues that talk to me about such crimes say they want to go to college and so forth. I tell them, go for it. One person did and said she felt better than the rehab because they make you feel literally like you have illnesses that you don't have. The county and government systems place people with disabilities (like myelf), people who are homeless (like my friend), people coming from jail, and people with severe mental health illness all together in a "non descrimination" environment tucked away.

From my experience, that, already, robs people of their lives. People want to die...so now wonder they don't change their behaviors. They can't get out if the system is confirming they should be there because they are beyond rehabilitation.

If I had a choice between my dying and he living, my emotional response would be my to live but not at the expense of his death because he killed someone. But my beliefs say that we should help others out of suffering even if it means suffering ourselves. So, there is a balance.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not a fan of "rights" language precisely because at the end of the day, it is vacuous. A creature has the "right" to do that which it has the capacity of doing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Plus, my culture has very dysfunctional perspectives about death. It's death-denying, almost to an extreme, and therefore typically fails to give proper honor to the blessings of death, or to acknowledge its necessity and inevitability. We treat death as the enemy: something to be fought and something to be defeated, instead of embraced as part of the Great Cycle. We think of death as the worst thing ever, even though there are far worse fates one can inflict upon creatures. Frankly, life sentences strike me as far more barbaric than the death penalty.

 

[BSM1]

My point is. what do we judge who should live by age, intent, and behavior? Who has the right to do this? My theme was giving my general view of taking lives and other religious and worldview perspectives.

Yes. That too. The right to live supersedes everything else. I was also asking if someone holds a religious worldview or morals and their opinions reflect the opposite, how does that work out? (I tried to do this in colors.. So I'm just rephrase).

We can protect anyone who kills others by...

There are missionaries that help killers change their ways to a moral understanding (say God) to where their mindset hopefully changes.

If they are in need of treatements or counseling (especially if they feel they need it and/or suffering from illnesses) that's a way to help.

In group homes and specific housing they have a rehabilitation center where each person has to "report to" and learn to find work (which the county is kind of corrupt in implementing it appropriately).... but the intent is that a lot of murderers within the system I was in and people who commited crimes in their past, are helped.

Unfortunely, they place these places in the back of warehouses and out of the scenes of the public. It reconfirms their being "things" or not good people and a lot of eople who have mental health issues that talk to me about such crimes say they want to go to college and so forth. I tell them, go for it. One person did and said she felt better than the rehab because they make you feel literally like you have illnesses that you don't have. The county and government systems place people with disabilities (like myelf), people who are homeless (like my friend), people coming from jail, and people with severe mental health illness all together in a "non descrimination" environment tucked away.

From my experience, that, already, robs people of their lives. People want to die...so now wonder they don't change their behaviors. They can't get out if the system is confirming they should be there because they are beyond rehabilitation.

If I had a choice between my dying and he living, my emotional response would be my to live but not at the expense of his death because he killed someone. But my beliefs say that we should help others out of suffering even if it means suffering ourselves. So, there is a balance.

Still not sure of where you're going with your rambling, but my question was very specific: The gun is at your head and you find yourself in possession of a weapon, who dies? You or him?

 

[Laika]

I'm more in agreement with @Quintessence , as the notion of a "right to life" is a very nebulous one though perhaps for different reasons. We are all going to die and it is inevitable. We can make decisions that can shorten and prolong it, but the outcome is the same. (I don't think there is a technological route to immortality, but life-extension maybe).

A Evolutionary understanding of nature makes clear that death is part of the struggle of survival. When this is applied to humans in forms of social darwinism, something changes as it is to our own kind (though we have a surprising capacity to deny it). I use the term social darwinism very loosely in which we treat human beings as primarily extensions of the animal kingdom engaged in a struggle for survival- whether by competing or co-operating (as both are applicable). the problem is that this makes life conditional and that we do not have 'inherent' right to life. death is both natural, but clearly not desirable.

I've come accross the phrase "culture of death" in refering to challanges to the sanctity of human life. The idea that life is 'sacred' is actually a difficult one as there is (in my worldview) no god to sanctify it. Of course, if man made god, so too did they create the notion of an intrinsic value in life. it is hard however as clearly without the backing of a deity, it is not an absolute protection of life, but one which can be violated "under certian circumstances". Whilst I'm willing to entertian that hypothetically, it makes me uneasy as clearly without god it is up to people to decide who lives and who dies. I don't trust people enough to value another's life as much as their own.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Still not sure of where you're going with your rambling, but my question was very specific: The gun is at your head and you find yourself in possession of a weapon, who dies? You or him?

I know I write a lot. It would help if you read the post because the points were outlined and said in color. The second post, I started of with "my point". I also answered your question:

Answer first post--
"If I had a choice between my dying and he living, my emotional response would be my to live but not at the expense of his death because he killed someone. But my beliefs say that we should help others out of suffering even if it means suffering ourselves. So, there is a balance."

Answer second post--
I would not kill someone "at the expense of their killing someone" but to save me from "immediate" danger.

Comment--
My point in This thread and "to get this off my chest" I value life. I dont underatand

A. How others do not
B. How one says something contradicting ones faith

I have strong emotions if someone tried to kill my brother.

Those emotions are Not my morals.

 

[FearGod]

My point is. what do we judge who should live by age, intent, and behavior? Who has the right to do this? My theme was giving my general view of taking lives and other religious and worldview perspectives.

Yes. That too. The right to live supersedes everything else. I was also asking if someone holds a religious worldview or morals and their opinions reflect the opposite, how does that work out? (I tried to do this in colors.. So I'm just rephrase).

We can protect anyone who kills others by...

There are missionaries that help killers change their ways to a moral understanding (say God) to where their mindset hopefully changes.

If they are in need of treatements or counseling (especially if they feel they need it and/or suffering from illnesses) that's a way to help.

In group homes and specific housing they have a rehabilitation center where each person has to "report to" and learn to find work (which the county is kind of corrupt in implementing it appropriately).... but the intent is that a lot of murderers within the system I was in and people who commited crimes in their past, are helped.

Unfortunely, they place these places in the back of warehouses and out of the scenes of the public. It reconfirms their being "things" or not good people and a lot of eople who have mental health issues that talk to me about such crimes say they want to go to college and so forth. I tell them, go for it. One person did and said she felt better than the rehab because they make you feel literally like you have illnesses that you don't have. The county and government systems place people with disabilities (like myelf), people who are homeless (like my friend), people coming from jail, and people with severe mental health illness all together in a "non descrimination" environment tucked away.

From my experience, that, already, robs people of their lives. People want to die...so now wonder they don't change their behaviors. They can't get out if the system is confirming they should be there because they are beyond rehabilitation.

If I had a choice between my dying and he living, my emotional response would be my to live but not at the expense of his death because he killed someone. But my beliefs say that we should help others out of suffering even if it means suffering ourselves. So, there is a balance.

And if a killer doesn't stop killing regardless of the efforts made to discipline him, don't we have the right to kill him as well ?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Guys. This is just getting things off my chest. Post 7 sums up the OP. The rambling is "on purpose"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And if a killer doesn't stop killing regardless of the efforts made to discipline him, don't we have the right to kill him as well ?

No. My point is no one has the right to take another person's life.

I have a lot of experiences with compassion for people whose behavior I dislike. Its in my OP. I mean, I can kind of let go someone who is not religious (not limited to organized) and morals are flexible, but my OP also said I dont understand how one's opinion about taking a life conflict with their religion.

Thats like me going out killing people because they killed someone else. Am I justified for my actions or do I need to be a correctional officer for those same actions to be "good"?

Anyway, just stuff off my chest. I cant change perspectives but everytime I try to see in another persons view, I get stuck. Like a christian trying to imagine there was no God.

 

[FearGod]

No. My point is no one has the right to take another person's life.

I have a lot of experiences with compassion for people whose behavior I dislike. Its in my OP. I mean, I can kind of let go someone who is not religious (not limited to organized) and morals are flexible, but my OP also said I dont understand how one's opinion about taking a life conflict with their religion.

Thats like me going out killing people because they killed someone else. Am I justified for my actions or do I need to be a correctional officer for those same actions to be "good"?

Anyway, just stuff off my chest. I cant change perspectives but everytime I try to see in another persons view, I get stuck. Like a christian trying to imagine there was no God.

No one has the right, but the law has.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No one has the right, but the law has.

The law isnt an entity in space, though. People created the law. They created their own right to take another life. That is wrong. Who gave them that right?

That's no better than my creating a law (in scenario) that gives me the right to kill murderers. Does it being legal make it ethical?

That's my point. It's the moral and ethical issues behind killing murderers. I can't change the fact I disagree with the government but in general I don't see any good in taking a life.

Though the ethical reasons from everyday humans from people in the government to Joe Smoe living in the streets, we are all human. We make stupid choices. We suffer consequences.

None of which should impune our last and only right: to live.

I'm not saying they should be free to kill other people. I'm just keeping it to ethical reasons that killing murderers is wrong because they are people too.

EDIT
I could never work as a correctional officer. Maybe those that are can find balance between their belief system and their job. Maybe their job goes in line with their beliefs. Maybe they ignore their beliefs so they can get a pay check. Unless someone forced me or I had no choice, I'd never choose a job that completely goes against my belief system.

How do people do that? (Also in my OP)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Perhaps in determining the value of life one also has to examine the value of death.

 

[columbus]

No one has the right, but the law has.

I believe that this goes straight to Carlita's point.

"The law" you are referring to is human authority. If god has plans of any kind, you are stopping them. You, as a human are usurping His authority. You can claim that you have this authority for any reason you want to, but it is still you and whatever humans you agree have authority doing things.
Not God.
The difference is important.
Tom

 

[FearGod]

The law isnt an entity in space, though. People created the law. They created their own right to take another life. That is wrong. Who gave them that right?

That's no better than my creating a law (in scenario) that gives me the right to kill murderers. Does it being legal make it ethical?

That's my point. It's the moral and ethical issues behind killing murderers. I can't change the fact I disagree with the government but in general I don't see any good in taking a life.

Though the ethical reasons from everyday humans from people in the government to Joe Smoe living in the streets, we are all human. We make stupid choices. We suffer consequences.

None of which should impune our last and only right: to live.

I'm not saying they should be free to kill other people. I'm just keeping it to ethical reasons that killing murderers is wrong because they are people too.

EDIT
I could never work as a correctional officer. Maybe those that are can find balance between their belief system and their job. Maybe their job goes in line with their beliefs. Maybe they ignore their beliefs so they can get a pay check. Unless someone forced me or I had no choice, I'd never choose a job that completely goes against my belief system.

How do people do that? (Also in my OP)

That will be the law of the jungle or back to the stone age, if people won't agree on laws to protect the vulnerable people then
no woman can feel safe walking at midnight.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That will be the law of the jungle or back to the stone age, if people won't agree on laws to protect the vulnerable people then
no woman can feel safe walking at midnight.

I keep writing this long posts. I find out after the fact. I'll try to summarize my points if you don't care to read this.

If you mean the death penalty, without that, the law would still try to prevent crimes. That, I agree with. Premeditating and planning someone's death after years of their crime is completely different. Years down the line, how do we not know the people changed. Maybe during those years they could have had some intervention (if it were allowed).

Think of it like this. We have psychiatric wards nearby where I live. People are commited because they are in danger to themselves and/or to others. They are their for treatment and help. Not all mental illnesses means that person cannot think for himself. Many people are pretty sane (behavior is rational) but their mind is not.

They are in danger to others and to themselves.

A criminal (murderer)is no different. He is in danger to others. He goes to jail as a patient goes to the hospital. He looses his liberty as the patient loses hers in order to treat her in a safe environment for her and for the people involved in her care. He is there for years, just like the patient (say my friend), who has been in the hospital for, what a year before they "Released" him into the county. If the murderer finds amends, repents, whatever, and changes, that is good. Same as the patient.

They are both human. They both knew what they did. Both are in the same boat of choosing to do that same thing that got them commited again. It is up to them to change.

They cannot change if our justice system prevents them to do so. Patients have been in the hospital for years as the government "thinks" they are curing people but they are confirming their illness instead

(Think of the movie One Flew Over the Cocoos Nest) The movie theme and plot is not fiction (fictional movie but its I know its real).

It's a good movie, with Jack Nicholsen and Jew Carry, I believe. Early 80s. Anyway. I love movies.

I'm not saying don't protect citizens. I am saying any protective stratagy that one plans to and thinks about taking a life is not a strategy I'd consider for any criminal.

------

1. Protecting citizens from immediate danger and keeping people in jail is one thing. That helps society. Taking them out the picture. I don't see how that helps society ethically... just to fulfill the law and wash their hands afterwards.

2. Murderers and severe mental health patients (context) are in danger to themselves and/or in danger to others. The former gets the chair. The later gets treatment. I don't see the logic. Help them both.

Also, watch one Flew Over the Cocoos Nest with Jack. That's a good movie. That with Shawshank Redemption.

3. People cannot change if our justice system prevents them to do so.

I'm not saying don't protect citizens. I am saying any protective stratagy that one plans to and thinks about taking a life is not a strategy I'd consider for any criminal.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Perhaps in determining the value of life one also has to examine the value of death.

Interesting. Do tell. I need another perspective. Positive, I hope?

 

[columbus]

That will be the law of the jungle or back to the stone age, if people won't agree on laws to protect the vulnerable people then
no woman can feel safe walking at midnight.

There is a huge gray area in between "the law of the jungle" and "let's kill people who are not any credible threat".
The logical fallacy you are using here is called "the excluded middle". We can have laws that protect peaceful people without killing any more humans than absolutely necessary.
Tom

 

[Twilight Hue]

Interesting. Do tell. I need another perspective. Positive, I hope?

Depends on perspective and contrast by which life is weighed. ;0]

To live of course, there has to be a consequential benefit derived from death, such as our nutritional requirements, for which a view of a long prosperous and positive life depends and relates upon it's relationship involving the demise and consumption of another weither being plant or animal, which may be construed as positive or negative depending upon perspective.

A value is thereby assigned with death and decay that directly translates with the value of life, by which precieved qualities such as positive views and actions, mirrors that of negative views and actions through various interrelationships providing a perceivable contrast, by which one can ascertain any givin value.

A bit Taoist in sense of the yin/yang nature of life and living, and the balances involved, for which "value" becomes equally disbursed throughout the whole, creating balence and imbalance as it's precieved, with the choice to see things in a positive or negative light at any givin time and moment.

In reality, any value precieved tends to remain fluid and dynamic it seems, and very hard to calibrate, if at all even, while swimming in the big pond.

 

[metis]

There simply is no good reason, imo, to have the death penalty in a country that has jails and prisons. It's sorta like "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?".