Are there any arguments for the innate sanctity of human life that aren't based on emotion?

Are there any arguments for the innate sanctity of human life that aren't based on emotion?

Attached: 018.jpg (512x512, 25.75K)

Nope, if you aren't a jew you are born with a goal of minimizing kills inside your species, but it depends on how you interpret it, if they are seen as an enemy group and lots of other factors. This explains why I fucking hate you, most of you don't behave like a human or a native species from Earth.

There are logical arguments based on group survival and all that too.

Are they any arguments for hedonism that arn't based on emotion? Are there any arguments for utilitarianism that arn't based on emotion?

Instinct for self preservation
Instinct for procreation
Instinct for raising your progeny to maturity
Those instincts can sometimes be mistaken for simple emotions

life is an illusion, do you think you will remember or care about anything once your dead? best thing is to kill as many people as you can and then kill yourself.

It could just be the sheer complexity of our lives. It is a detriment to our surrounding present to eliminate our potential.

The problem with this point though is my metric of "complexity" is arbitrary and biased. If it were true then the death of most creatures is also a tragedy, which might not be incorrect.
Of course if you just think about the sheer numbers then no, morally an individuals action will have little impact for a continual degree of time and do not need to be maintained to one's own detriment.

Why is that the best thing?

A bullet to the face is a good argument against emotion. The bullet has no innate sense of the value or sanctity of human life. Neither does the machete.

Attached: Too many heads.jpg (528x960, 55.92K)

If you think analytically about how many human lives have already existed and passed beyond this planet, then it becomes much easier to include others among the already dead, but not so much yourself.

Imagine not intuitively recognizing the value of human life and having to be logic'd to in order to have a heart.

>innate sanctity of human life

1. Human life - Including any individual person.
2. Sanctity - meaning:
a) Godly, or holy.
b) Inviolability
3. Innate - Part of a persons nature, or originitating in a persons mine..

2.a) annd 3 conflict - there is no sancity of something that is inate to mortal perople, or to humanity.

2.b) Human life is also not inviolate - human lives ends all the time.

But, 1. and 3. - life is innate to humans.

What you meant to ask was are there argumetns for an innate VALUE of human life note based on emotions.

The answer to that is yes, there is A value to all human lives. But, there is also a COST to all human lives. If the NET VALUE is too low, then it is prefereable for that person's life to end.

Economics is a non-emotional tool used to place numbers on VALUE and COST. Look up the Ford Pinto, and the $ value of a human life.

Attached: b_1972-Ford-Pinto-03.jpg (1000x694, 132.88K)

>are there any arguments for 2+2=4 that don’t involve numbers

Based mutt. Americans have recently being distant of what life is, this explains all the mass shootings, nigger shootouts, cartel infiltration and more. The problem is OPs mentality is being exported through mainstream media and such. If bitches show their bodies as meat and men are just cannon fodder, people will undoubtly think that human life is but walking meat.

Attached: 1557443581934.jpg (3064x1711, 717.01K)

Off with your head
Dance till you're dead

Killing something before its completed its inherent potential is a loss of net growth, and is not logical.

It’s in your self interest. If the individual is divine, that means YOU are divine. You are not beholden implicitly to structures that do not benefit you. And when others are treated fairly, you are able to maximize the value you get out of them.

There are no value statements that are not based in emotion.

once you start killing people, their kin and/or their kind will retaliate. Then you have huge costs for defense and YOUR life degrades.

Attached: wtf4.jpg (720x960, 72.88K)

What a stupid answer

If you believe in the sanctity of human life you have swallowed the religion pill way too deep and you're basically guaranteed to be a drain on society.

this.

as a lurker, i thank you for posting and thank you for you.

wow, I've never contemplated such profound argument.

Agreed, though I don’t hate OP I think asking this merits value

You sound like a faggot

what part do you not understand...
People can retaliate, so it is your best interest not to kill others.
This is a non religious non emotional argument of why human life is "sacred", considering "sacred" a mechanism to impose reasonable controls on irrational/low IQ people.

Nope

>innate sanctity of human life
No
Human beings are naked monkeys made of atoms like a banana.
Just machines that process matter and information

>be me
>try to give philosophy another shot
>group of 10-year olds with mental health issues
>german exchange student keeps on implying that teacher should treat him like the übermensch that he is

You dun fucked up the academic narrative Yas Forums

No. For instance Bolsheviks and Nazis rejected those ideas.

Attached: 1586024487479.jpg (604x602, 150.54K)

why don’t you start as an example by necking yourself asap

Nope.
If you debase man from his image and likeness with God: no.

Are there any arguments that aren't based on emotion?

Yes. Kill 6 million Jews.

blessed post best post
blessed check
have a blessed image and a blessed day

Attached: 1585589951820.jpg (768x1024, 138.71K)