If the definition of life is-- a collection of mechanisms that function or attempt to function to maintain it’s existence, does a living being (in particular a human being) cease to be living when it ceases to perform or attempt to perform it’s function? When say, a man chooses something other than or counter life (crack cocaine, russian roulette, jackass antics), does he/she cease to be a living being and thereby forfeit the human rights our constitution affords them?
Have you ever taken crack cocaine?
No, I have done meth (once or twice) and other drugs (shrooms, lsd etc).
They were never my raison d’etre.
Opium does not give me a reason to exist. The absence of the opium gives me a reason to exist. And in order to feel its absence it must from time to time… be present.
‘Human rights’ are exactly that- the rights that every human has. No one can forfeit their human rights. Crackheads and Russian roulette players are still organisms, mammals of the species homo sapiens or humans. And so they have human rights. All humans have human rights. Mass murdering dictators, terrorists, serial child murderers are all humans. So they’ve all got human rights.
People really annoy me when they talk about some child murderer or something and say ‘HE’S LOST HIS HUMAN RIGHTS!!!’ How did he do that, exactly? Did he turn into a dog? Is he a duck-billed platypus now? Apparently there are some organisms that can actually change species. Caterpillars change into butterflies. Humans cannot do this.
Even those spiritually dead, can be brought back to life by the right means. “Condemn not, lest…”
Why make the definition of life to be something that it is not and then ask this question?
IMO, the most perfect and most philosophical definition of life is the one I just gave you.
The value of life is one that is inherit and should be naturally assumed at the point at which an individual begins to exist (whether it’s your belief an individuals existence begins in the fetus or on their initial contact with the world outside of the womb.)
Generally speaking, there are two values: the inherent value of every individual (irreplaceable w/ potential) and the value they can be of to others (setting the example / positive influence) type value.
Whether an individual chooses to divulge in the usage of drugs is their decision, and while it may not be the greatest way to ensuring their life is one that can be of value to others, it doesn’t negate their existence or the potential for value it has either.
Well its terrible and you alluded to one reason of why it is a terrible definition already. This one is much better.
1life noun \ˈlīf
plural lives
Definition of LIFE
1
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
There are degrees of individuality and humanity, exhibit A-- a retard, profoundly less human than I and possibly you.
No no no, if drugs are more important to them than their survival/the survival of their species, they’re not a lifeform, they’re a deathform.
All of those things you mentioned are secondary life characteristics. Nevermind the scientific definition, philosophy must come up with it’s own, what is philosophy, sciences bitch? The political definition should follow the philosophical one.
The moment something becomes more important than your life (unless it’s another’s life) is the moment you cease being a lifeform. The moment something counter life becomes your reason for existence is the moment you become a deathform. nonlifeforms shouldn’t have rights, deathforms should be destroyed or made to become lifeforms.
Life cannot exist without death. If your definition of life excludes death, 'tis no definition. Life is the struggle for survival, heroin junkies and murder junkies (minus those who ingest copious amounts of narcotics for medicinal purposes (Vanitas) aren’t struggling for survival, they can’t be classified as life according to my definition, which captures the essence of what it means to be alive. Only a philosopher could really capture the essence of anything, scientists are too compartmentalized.
Child murderers aren’t lifeforms, they’re deathforms, unless it can be proven they’ve changed their psychological disposition.
That’s just poetic language. Species are recognised according to genetics, not according to poetic language. The law operates according to accepted science not according to an internet discussion forum users’ half baked theories.
I disagree, your personal value of something does not determine what anything is.
No. The only ceasing of living is death.
The individual components (cells for example) of a food/murder junkie are still living (attempting to maintain their existence) but not the whole, the whole is serving something else/death. In this instance, values (human rights) follow from objective facts. Why are genetics a more important factor for determining life? We may encounter lifeforms without genetics (aliens, robots may one day be sophisticated and purposive enough to be considered life).
Can we at least try to be philosophic here? Who says that life attempts to maintain its existence? Rather it is more precise, and quite a different thing entirely, to say that life acts in such a way that its existence often (but certainly not always) tends toward being maintained over time.
To clarify because I’m not sure what you mean, but values are not human rights, values lead to what is lobbied for human rights. Values may or may not follow from objective facts.
By genetics I presume you mean organic material? Why are they an important factor for determining life? Because all life as we know it is made of organic material. In the same respect How should we determine that fire is:
Definition of FIRE
1
a (1) : the phenomenon of combustion manifested in light, flame, and heat (2)
If we may open a parallel universe and there fire is the unmistakable phenomenon of combustion manifested in cotton candy icicle pixies?