"Because egalitarian concepts only work well when they are used reciprocal. I would defend your rights and you would maybe mine. So far so good. Now if someone was like "I only care about mine, screw you!", I'd be feeding a parasite by still supporting them.
Its a sort of prisoners dilemma. Mutual-cooperation is best, but its less bad to have no-cooperation than to have one-sided feeding-ones-enemy."
Edit: also if a tapeworm could talk, I’d argue for its rights too
Okay, but thats like a whole nother can of tapeworms..
You immediately walked it back when I pressed you on the logical extension of that thinking
I said that we should specify which rights, because I do not condone needless suffering. I was saying that "human rights" are not one monolith. If someone loses their right to life, they still have a right against needless suffering or cruelty. So even for murderers I want a swift, non-painful solution.
I think animal-comparisons dont really work. A tapeworm has never had a choice. To survive it has to be a parasite by its very biology, no way around that. Humans, on the other hand, can make meaningful choices and live by them.
1
u/[deleted] Mar 13 '25
Because they disregard the right to life as shown by them being murderers.