Is life always precious?

Fedorgasm

Steel Belt
@Steel
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
28,190
Reaction score
35,740
We always try to preserve life no matter what. But is that the best way?

What about a homeless drug addict that's been hooked for 20 years and destroyed his mind to the point where he can never recover.

Should we still be treating his hep c? Or whatever illness he gets from his lifestyle? Or should the hospital be able to say "you did this to yourself" and kick him out?


It seems like there are many instances where there is no chance of recovery, yet we still do everything we can to keep them alive.

Of course we don't want to kill them, but should we let nature take its course and not save them? Is it nature's way of ending lives once they cannot take care of themselves? I mean if they were good people, then obviously they have someone that loves them and will take care of them. But if you were so shitty that nobody is willing to take care of you, then why do you still get to be saved?
 
Is life always precious? What about a homeless drug addict that's been hooked for 20 years and destroyed his mind to the point where he can never recover.

No. Do we not kill other human beings when we go to war? Those were probably some good people compared to pedophiles, rapists, criminals, and terrorists.
 
The value of life lies with the beholder of that life..
 
We always try to preserve life no matter what. But is that the best way?

What about a homeless drug addict that's been hooked for 20 years and destroyed his mind to the point where he can never recover.

Should we still be treating his hep c? Or whatever illness he gets from his lifestyle? Or should the hospital be able to say "you did this to yourself" and kick him out?


It seems like there are many instances where there is no chance of recovery, yet we still do everything we can to keep them alive.

Of course we don't want to kill them, but should we let nature take its course and not save them? Is it nature's way of ending lives once they cannot take care of themselves? I mean if they were good people, then obviously they have someone that loves them and will take care of them. But if you were so shitty that nobody is willing to take care of you, then why do you still get to be saved?
Darwinian. I agree. And we’ve gone so far as to not even allow people to die if they want to. Humans are too bloody attached to the idea of the preciousness of life, we have the survival instinct, but beyond that we should let nature take its course. Death isn’t as scary and terrible as we all fucking whine about. Only your body and ego die at death.
 
Darwinian. I agree. And we’ve gone so far as to not even allow people to die if they want to. Humans are too bloody attached to the idea of the preciousness of life, we have the survival instinct, but beyond that we should let nature take its course. Death isn’t as scary and terrible as we all fucking whine about. Only your body and ego die at death.
I can't see us surving as long as dinosaurs
 
Life is precious but not always.

For example, I would divert a train car full of people off a cliff to save my kids who are trapped on the tracks. Kids lives equal precious, random strangers not so much.

On the other hand, I would kill @Fedorgasm for a double scoop of oatmeal cookie ice cream.
 
There are varying degrees of precious. All the way from diamond precious, to piece of lint level "precious". Some lives aren't.

Someone like Issac Newton would be at the highest level. The government should have literally paid women to reproduce with him and support said women and there kids so they were taken care of.

Instead the government pays Billy Bob Joe Jr and Jenna Lynn to have hordes of low iq spawn, with genetically inherited poor moral traits (irresponsible, dishonest, etc) who will become grandparents by their mid 20's.

When I was younger I thought people who believed these things were insensitive, but once you start looking at the world rationally, you realize a Darwinian view is in the best interest of the world as a whole.
 
Just imagine someone you truly love going down the road of addiction and becoming a waist in everyone's eyes would you still see them as what they was/could be or send them off to die for what they are. But yeah I see what you're saying most people are useless but then again I give no fuck about most
 
Most people in hospitals "did it to themselves".

The few exceptions are accidents - accidents that are not borne out of negligence, that is.

Also, are you implying if the person is able to pay for the treatment they should be denied? Because they're not as good as you? I'm not getting your point. All hospitals are obligated to do is stabilize people.
 
No, not all life is precious by virtue that it is a human life. There are groups of people, such as the members of Boko Haram or ISIS, criminal elements in the world, and others whose deaths would improve the world around them. Your average child molester could die, and it would improve the immediate area around them, but it wouldn't strategically improve the world. For others, like Bin Laden, his death improved the whole world. So there are varying degrees of "this person should not exist," but invariably, it is just and proper that some people's lives are bad and require unnatural causes of death to shorten their existence on the planet.
 
I'm all to try save peoples that never directly harmed others, even if they're the cause of theyr own problems. They need help.

On other hand i will make fuckton of crimes in the death sentence range
 
I think it really depends of you give a fuck, or you don't.
 
This may not be very popular, but everyone's life is essentially worthless. The world would be better off if you weren't here using up resources. Your family and friends will mourn you, but in the big picture of things no one gives a shit.

Is a person's life more valuable than a bacteria's? They're both life. We will say a person is more important because we're selfish, but life is life. At least the bacteria is not knowingly contributing to the destruction of the planet for dumb reasons.

Like Fedorgasm is a cool dude and I'd miss some of his posts, but it really wouldn't effect me if he died. Just one less out of 7.6 billion and rising. The world wasn't meant to sustain that many people and we're completely wrecking this wonderful world that we were given. Gifted. Literally the only place in the universe we know has sustained life.

Look at Bourdain. It's sad for his daughter, but he chose to be where he is now. We don't get to choose if we want to be born, but we can choose to die. We all will die. Humans will eventually destroy the planet. Look at the massive damage we've done in just the last 200 or so years. Extrapolate it out. We're just too selfish.

I kinda understand the whole abortion and contraceptive thing, but we seriously need to reduced the population post haste. It took to the 1800s for humans to get to 1 billion and we now are at around 7.6. It goes up by a billion every 11 to 13 years now. This is not sustainable, folks.

So basically, everyone will die and is expendable. The world will go on if Trump or GSP or LeBron or Kate Upton or whomever dies. To me, a junkie's life is more or less as important as a scientist's life who is trying to cure cancer. The junkie is probably more important because they will probably die soon and not contribute to overpopulation. Dearh and suffering is inevitable and shouldn't necessarily be looked down on.

Anyway, I'm probably going to Hell for these views. But probably not, since I don't believe in it. My solution: At 70 we force all people to go to a "re-education camp," where we euthanize them and turn their bodies into a bland cracker to feed the living. We can call it something like Soylent Green.

 
Socially it's pretty obvious that some lives are a net loss (by whatever metric) for the group. We tend to tolerate them because we value compassion and such natural instances tend to be rare, though "unnatural" instances, for lack of a better word, can often be indicative of systemic flaws.

Better question is if a life can have negative value to itself.
 
Due to Christian brainwashing its always assumed that Darwinian views are bad and immoral, well the reality is if there is a god, he's the one who created natural selection and evolution. It's humans who have chosen to circumvent that.
 
Yes, there are absolutely
  • Large differences in the value of one life compared to another
  • People with values at or very close to 0, that shouldn't receive significant resources
  • People with significantly negative values who would, ideally, be actively exterminated
 
Back
Top