Archive for July 26th, 2008

In a previous contribution I had referred to a component within an alternative perspective on relative moral quantification. I had spoken of a hierarchy based upon the degree of internalization or externalization of any conceivable concept. This time I would like to expand upon the relevance of such a hierarchy to the construction and function of any moral system set within the structures of logic.

Returning to an old question, why is it wrong for one person to kill another? Is it wrong for one person to kill another? Why, or why not? These are questions that religious texts do not answer to satisfaction.

Does an individual have the right to kill? If that question were to stand alone then the answer would be yes. The reason why the answer would be yes is because there is no conflict of interest involved. No target is defined and therefore there is no reason why an individual should not kill within the context of such a vacuum. This is why a large portion of the gaming industry features guilt-free killing. Puncturing a 3D image full of similarly virtual holes consists of acts upon the level of expression rather than action. It is acted out but not performed and the interests of no living organism come into play.

Lets turn the question around. Does an individual have the right to live? The answer is yes, because the individual has an interest staked in living. So if an individual has the right to live and an individual has the right to kill then how does this play out in the context of an individual wishing to kill another? The moment that the rights of one entity cross and contradict the rights of another entity, then one enters into the realm of responsibility – the prioritization of rights.

Rights and responsibilities. That is what this boils down to. The previous contribution outlines the basis for determining a moral hierarchy and it may now be appreciated, serving as a yard-stick by which the moral engine of rights and responsibilities is able to function.

Returning to the old question, an individual has a right both to live and to kill. However to live is to be while to kill is to act or do or choose. In the previous contribution it was proposed that the hierarchy should run via the adjectives to be, to think, to express and to do. Therefore while an individual has a right to be alive and the right to perform the act of killing, an individual also has the responsibility not to perform the act of killing as it contravenes another individual’s right to be alive. The right to be alive of one individual nullifies the right of another to perform the act of killing.