Is there any serious philosophical argument for "sanctity of life", or it is just muh feels?

Is there any serious philosophical argument for "sanctity of life", or it is just muh feels?

youtube.com/watch?v=TPxi5wzmPRA

Other urls found in this thread:

csfd.cz/film/276933-muzi-v-nadeji/prehled/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Not watching your gay video.

Not even Philosophical. The Golden Rule is literally survival-tier thinking.
>Let us not be dicks to each other to heighten our chances for survival.

>Is there any serious philosophical argument
No.

Didn't think so

Is there any serious philosophical argument that denies the "sanctity of life" that isn't just "muh feels"?

Burden of proof

Natural Law I suppose. It is "serious" although I get the feeling you won't find any argument that invokes it all that convincing.

Sauce on the hot ginger?

lol.

What's your proof life is objectively insignificant? Did an electron whisper into your ear your ebin milquetoast me-too starbucks-brand nihilism is the One Truth?

pls gib sauce

Natural Law > Philosophy m8.

Ergo Sanctity of Life is above something as shallow as philosophy.

Vica Kerekes.

What depth does natural law offer?

>Depth
What are you, 14?

>Nature
kek good one.

If natural law carries no depth then it might as well be as shallow as philosophy.

The natural just is. It doesn't need to be Pradeep Singh 4 u to justify itself.

Philosophy is shallow because it continuously has to prove itself.

The universe is better off with a bunch of emergent phenomena such as life than it is without by human standards. It goes beyond mere feels unless you are talking about feels in a very very general sense.

Thanks for proving that the natural is nothing more than shallow after all. :^)

...

Where is this webm from?

Sure, but am certain you wouldn't get two paragraphs in without getting bored and masturbating.

Czech/slovak movie muži v naději (men in hope) Dont expect any translation.
csfd.cz/film/276933-muzi-v-nadeji/prehled/

>let me just get some skid marks and pube sweat all up in this hair to show you muh feminine wiles

There is zero arguments that isn't biased from the pro-biological perspective that already attributes a life to have a value on its own.

Not only that, but it CAN'T prove itself either because eventually you reach axioms/definitions which are based on senses.

...

B-but I was on your side...

> skid marks

Do people actually have these? What kind of fucking barbarian leaves traces of their shit on their underwear??? just fucking wipe properly you dumb motherfucker

What a lot of you seem to be forgetting is that even in nature the idea of sanctity of life isn't always respected and adhered to. Sometimes animals that travel in packs leave behind a sick or injured herd member to die if keeping it and helping nurse it back to life would slow down the herd or otherwise inconvenience it. Even in human behaviour the sanctity of life isn't always adhered to - the homeless are sometimes left to freeze to death/starve in a lot of developed societies because helping them at all costs would inconvenience the society too much.

What I would surmise is that the argument for absolute sanctity of life is flawed and nature requires a compromise where the weakest are left to die.

I don't know of any philosophical works that touch on this since I'm quite new to philosophy but would be thankful if someone were to recommend some

:)

Freudian argument is the only one that actually makes sense rationally.
We call life sacred because it's a way to deflect/defend against the constant pressure to kill bitch niggers that constantly annoy us.
For this reason the word sacred has a very ambivalent character.

Im fucking sleepy I guess

*sheathes Katana*

But why ignore the pressure? If you are in a place in society where it would be easy to kill off people who you find to not be helpful why would you stop yourself?

Since you are in a place in society where killing these people would be possible, you are obviously higher on the social ladder, and hence you are more likely to make decisions that would benefit the society as a whole.

>George Carlin

It brought our civilization comfort and techniques to enhance life.

You feel there is no depth to an idea, well natural laws made possible drugs - which act on regions of brain which makes even a dumb idea seem poetical and brilliant.

Shit is we don't know anything either, but at least we live better and longer, and we're able to have more fun while experiencing all this.

So at least - if you can't answer the fundamental answers, maybe your off-springs will - but not that is important rather, your generation thanks to scientific tool is able to live the human potential, do much more in this unique time while we're alive.

Nice argument bro.

Natural Law is literally a spook. Not even memeing.

Ironically, if what you're saying about Natural Law is true, it's philosophy that did this because a subjective belief in Natural Law is a philosophical stance.

>What a lot of you seem to be forgetting is that even in nature the idea of sanctity of life isn't always respected and adhered to. Sometimes animals that travel in packs leave behind a sick or injured herd member to die if keeping it and helping nurse it back to life would slow down the herd or otherwise inconvenience it

Always thought this was a good point regarding the topic. We see the demands of nature itself in how the animals on our planet practice a natural triage. They do this for the benefit of the group as a whole and to preserve their fitness and thusly their ability to preserve life in the long run.

Wouldn't that decrease chances of survival for future generations by artificially allowing inferior genes to survive and reproduce?

Ok retards listen up

The only reason we have this idea of life being sacred is so assholes with power can't kill some guy because he stole a chicken from the market or because he fucked the chieftain of the village's wife

It's literally just to stop unenlightened retards from killing someone they don't like just b/c of "m-muh feels m-muh private property m-muh mate"

Human beings are not binary. A criminal can also be a cop. Doesn't mean he's a bad cop just because he doesn't pay taxes.

Taking someone's life removes their potential for good from the world. If life was not held as sacred and everyone killed everyone who was a "criminal" or someone they disliked then the only people left alive would be the barbarians with the most physical power akin to how the intelligent neanderthals were wiped out by the brutish Homo erectus.

> allowing inferior genes
Counter argument to that point is if you allow the people to choose what genes should be in future, then they would just prefer useless bullshit. Like girls would go for ooga booga chad and boys for pretty face, good for nothing bitches. Then their childs would be the worse of two worlds and our society transforms basically into an Africa. How we are even supposed to know what genes can't help us in the future, except some really shitty... That woudn't survive anyway.

for the record, i agree with you

i just like to be contrarian and play devils advocate

Well when you phrase in terms of doing what is best for the group and what would maximise the passing down of genes, I think that Dawkin's Selfish Gene talks about this a lot... although it's not a philosophical nor really much of a scientific book....why is dawks such a fucking pseud

Pragmatically, if you don't value life, then you don;t value yourself. This kind of strategy would be selected against quite strongly, which is why most people "feel" life has value.