Why are Leftists so Adamant about Killing Living Humans who have Committed No Crime?

[ColdHardTruth]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

Here we have an example of a right-winger using the word "Marxist" but clearly having no earthly idea what the word means.

We demand the right to exercise free will. Your religion is not the law and it will not be permitted to make decisions for other people.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

This isn’t the capital punishment forum.

 

[choiceone]

Your point that the term "collective capacity" referring to a group's capacity rather than an individual's capacity does not detract from the argument that humans possess inherent value derived from our species' ability to comprehend complex concepts like morality and justice.

Individuals do not possess inherent value derived from a species' ability to comprehend complex concepts - they possess inherent value derived from their individual ability to comprehend complex concepts. Hence, an anecephalic neonate does not have that inherent value. We may choose to treat it as if it has that value, but it doesn't, because that would depend on its having a brain to allow such a species' ability to be demonstrated. Same thing for embryos and fetuses.

The use of "collective" does not imply that moral agency or value as solely a group phenomenon but acknowledges that these capacities are characteristics of humanity as a whole. This does not negate the value of individuals but rather supports the idea that each person is part of a species capable of complex thought and moral discernment.

But these aren't characteristics of humanity as a whole. All humanity as a whole is is a collection of individual instances. The individuals who lack that moral agency lack it - they aren't part of the humanity that doesn't.

The traits exhibited by sociopaths despite their divergence from societal norms of empathy and moral reasoning do not exclude them from their membership in the human collective. Sociopaths also share in the genetic, historical, and cultural heritage that defines humanity just like everyone else. The essence of being human is not predicated on a uniform expression of traits but on a shared biological and existential foundation that encompasses all members of the species.

That's mere opinion. Human sociopaths do not demonstrate the bare minimum capacity to be members of a collective having that minimum capacity as a defining characteristic. That's your problem.

As an anthropologist, I sympathize with your difficulty. Anthropologists have to include all humans in their study, all members of the species and also all human zygotes/embryos/fetuses. That's why its so difficult to make symbolic capacity a defining characteristic of the species - neither an embryo nor an anencephalic neonate has that. Can't use the standard number of chromosomes and still include Down syndrome kids.

Human societies and cultures are built upon and evolve through our collective cognitive and moral capacities. These social and cultural constructs not only depend on the collective capacities of humans but also reinforce the value of each individual within the society. By contributing to, participating in, or being a potential participant in these constructs, each individual gains value from the collective capacity of the species to create and sustain such constructs. Also every individual by virtue of being human shares in the collective heritage of humanity. This heritage includes not only our collective cognitive and moral capacities but also the potential for these capacities to develop and be expressed. The value of an individual in turn does not derive solely from their current abilities but also from their inherent membership in the human species.

I don't buy it. This is just ideology. Anyone can make up an ideology. There are individuals who do not gain any value from the collective capacity of the species, and who do not share in the collective heritage. The anencephalic individual is an example. Inherent membership in the human species confers no value here. Wanna hate me for a "eugenic" view? I don't blame you. But a human without a brain able to house conscious awareness is a serious philosophical problem. You can't gloss over it.

End Part 1

 

[choiceone]

Abstract thought while capable of being morally neutral can and does tackle questions of right, wrong, and the nature of a good life, and serves as the foundation for moral philosophy and ethics. The dignity of individuals is not isolated from the dignity of the collective but rather it is through our interactions and the shared fabric of society that individual dignity is affirmed and protected.

This sounds like overgeneralized abstract collectivist ideological nonsense.

Your perspective fails to acknowledge that inherent dignity is not predicated on current function or capacity but on being a member of the human species. Embryos & fetuses which are like newborns & individuals with mental disabilities are part of the human continuum, possessing potential for growth and development. Their value does not derive from their current state of development but instead from their inherent connection to the human collective.

I don't think inherent dignity is predicated on being a member of the human species. Hitler was a member of the human species.

The fact that Down syndrome kids do not have the same number of chromosomes we use to define the human species is a logical problem in biology.

Embryos and fetuses are not like newborns and individuals with mental disabilities. The latter have or have at least previously once demonstrated conscious awareness/ mind. Accordingly, we can include them in the universe of conscious awareness/mind, as conscious beings or beings having conscious mental capacity, BASED ON OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, NOT SUBJECTIVE FAITH.

 

[choiceone]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

This is ridiculous. Donald Trump has publicly stated in his appeals that anyone who has been president of the US should have blanket legal immunity for any action he/she takes as president, and has included the hypothetical case of the person having his political rival assassinated.

If we were to say, gee, okay, then, our society would permit the killing of living humans who have committed no crime. And that wouldn't be leftist, Marxist, or Democratic at all. It would be authoritarian and totalitarian.

Republicans have for decades mistaken leftist and Marxist, to mean authoritarian and totalitarian, probably because the Soviet Union was a leftist and Marxist state. But Nazi Germany was authoritarian and totalitarian, and it was a rightist fascist state.

That Republicans want to make Democrats into authoritarians and totalitarians is an amusing attempt to forget the Joe McCarthy era, when they themselves came as close as they could to being authoritarians and totalitarians themselves until McCarthy was shown up for the empty blowhard he was.

You're not getting away with it again.

 

[Lursa]

This sounds like overgeneralized abstract collectivist ideological nonsense.

I don't think inherent dignity is predicated on being a member of the human species. Hitler was a member of the human species.

The fact that Down syndrome kids do not have the same number of chromosomes we use to define the human species is a logical problem in biology.

Embryos and fetuses are not like newborns and individuals with mental disabilities. The latter have or have at least previously once demonstrated conscious awareness/ mind. Accordingly, we can include them in the universe of conscious awareness/mind, as conscious beings or beings having conscious mental capacity, BASED ON OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, NOT SUBJECTIVE FAITH.

Dignity is also a subjective thing.

And many other species are self-aware enough for individuals to express it. So again, one has to ask...what is the "level" or "amount" of one of these "values" @collected is using in order to qualify for rights?

And 'inherent dignity' in being a member of a species is also subjective. I feel zero dignity in being Homo sapiens. IMO, that's just the kind of thinking that sets up racism...is there more 'inherent dignity' in being white than black? I'll bet good money a lot of white people believe so. It's all subjective.

 

[Top Cat]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

This is what your ****ing laws do.

 

[rhinefire]

The single greatest example for the pro-abortion cause is Donald J. Trump. Even a coat hanger abortion would have been a blessing to the free world.

 

[rhinefire]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

They are not human any more than an egg is a chicken and so like Trump it is justified to end the process.