The Value of Life

[Professor X]

Seems to me like you reduced this to a simple supply-demand thing. There's a large abundance of life occuring; therefore, it loses its objective value. Am I right in this interpretation of your comment?

Well yes but you put it into a context that makes it sound derogative towards life itself. What I am trying to say here is:

For me life is a wonderful and amazing phenomenon that (as far as we know) only occurs on Earth. The way I see it, throughout the universe, things small and large get born and die all the time. It is like a life cycle. so what I suppose i am trying to say here is that i value the cycle of life and death more than an individual life itself. And that life cannot be valued by any quantity of material value.

Pfft it hard to write what I am trying to say here. I will get it right one day and maybe I'll write a book lol.

[Bree Fletcher]

Well yes but you put it into a context that makes it sound derogative towards life itself. What I am trying to say here is:

For me life is a wonderful and amazing phenomenon that (as far as we know) only occurs on Earth. The way I see it, throughout the universe, things small and large get born and die all the time. It is like a life cycle. so what I suppose i am trying to say here is that i value the cycle of life and death more than an individual life itself. And that life cannot be valued by any quantity of material value.

Pfft it hard to write what I am trying to say here. I will get it right one day and maybe I'll write a book lol.

No, actually, I get it now. Let me try again, maybe, with an analogy? It doesn't matter whether your individual cells die, so long as the whole you continues to exist. Likewise, it doens't matter if individual lifeforms live or die so much, so long as life itself goes on?

[Holeypaladin]

Yes, terrorists honestly deserve to die. Every one of them. They try to justify what is unjustifiable. The killing of noncombatants can never be justified, not be any sort of religious extremism. Therefore, they don't deserve to live.

Murderers deserve to die. Hitler deserves to die, as he's a murderer, despite his love for the Aryan race. Attempts at rehabilitation merely lead to killers being left alive to keep killing. Because more often than not, if someone kills once, they have no qualms about doing it again, and leaving them alive just gives them more opportunity. How many must die due to unsuccessful rehabilitation attempts to justify eliminating the killer? If the number is more than 0, then the rehab is a failure. And the number is most definitely going to be higher than one.

It is out of a respect, value, and appreciation for life that I say that those who despise it and devalue it should be put down.

[Skirata]

Yes, terrorists honestly deserve to die. Every one of them. They try to justify what is unjustifiable. The killing of noncombatants can never be justified, not be any sort of religious extremism.

What if we were to say that those very terrorists which are killing noncombatants are wanting control of their land? What if they find it wrong that America is in their Holy Land? What if they are fighting for their version of freedom?

As for killing non combatants, all countries do it. America has done it too in the Middle East so are American troops terrorists? Do they deserve the same fate as other terrorists?

[imnothere]

Because more often than not, if someone kills once, they have no qualms about doing it again, and leaving them alive just gives them more opportunity. How many must die due to unsuccessful rehabilitation attempts to justify eliminating the killer? If the number is more than 0, then the rehab is a failure. And the number is most definitely going to be higher than one.

It is out of a respect, value, and appreciation for life that I say that those who despise it and devalue it should be put down.

you are yourself in this statement making yourself a killer. one who has not yet taken life perhaps, but the mentality you are so vehemently against is present in the words you are using.

if there is even 1/1000 killers rehabilitated (and i believe the number is higher then that) then by killing all killers you take that life AND its opportunity for 'redemption' in what ever form that takes. you also create a vicious cycle where the man who pulls the lever on the electric chair is now a killer and must die. you cant force suicide.



understand i know where your coming from on this. i agree that life is precious and should be protected. but the measures to which you protect life must be moderated.

take for example the wildlife management of Yellowstone. the wolfs were killed off to 'protect' the herd animals. and while those intentions were good in they were uninformed and therefor the act was wrong. the herd animals had no predators to cull them and got out of hand. and the very men that had wanted to protect their lives had to take them because the balance was upset.
what you are suggesting is as uninformed as the suggestion to kill all the wolfs.

[Holeypaladin]

There is nothing wrong with killing a murderer.

Once a man has taken an innocent life, he has proven that life has no meaning to him. Therefore, his life has no meaning. Therefore, to kill him is not murder, but an act of preservation to prevent him from taking life. The man who pulls the hands on the electric chair is not taking an innocent life, but rather a life that is already forfeit.

Even an American soldier who takes the lives of noncombatants (and therefore committing a war crime) should be put down like any other murderer.

[imnothere]

are you differentiating then between what is called "killing in cold blood" and every other kind of killing?
what desperate men do when desperate is different from what they would do if they were not. take away what makes them desperate and you have a different person. a "new man". shouldnt they be given the opportunity to prove that they can change their life? if one doesnt want to change one wont, that i will grant you. but i firmly believe that all life deserves the chance to better itself.

[Skirata]

There is nothing wrong with killing a murderer.

Once a man has taken an innocent life, he has proven that life has no meaning to him. Therefore, his life has no meaning. Therefore, to kill him is not murder, but an act of preservation to prevent him from taking life. The man who pulls the hands on the electric chair is not taking an innocent life, but rather a life that is already forfeit.

Even an American soldier who takes the lives of noncombatants (and therefore committing a war crime) should be put down like any other murderer.

Would you say that to those who dropped the atomic bombs? Those who made life as we know it possible? Can you just nonchalantly clump every man, woman, or child who has taken a life in the same category?

[chaoticjoy1]

This is all based on ones opinion and their morale beliefs, I believe that people who deserves to live should, but those who have committed murder with hatred shall perish into the land of despair.

[imnothere]

This is all based on ones opinion and their morale beliefs, I believe that people who deserves to live should, but those who have committed murder with hatred shall perish into the land of despair.

please expand your viewpoint to me. on what marets shall those who are doing the judging of which killers should live and which killers should die should be making these decisions on? what morals as you so aptly name them should we judge our fellow humans by?