So easy

Or you could recognize that human life has intrinsic value and that killing someone, regardless of the reasons, is a horrible action causing you to be guilty as well.

Life does not have value. If society would recognize that, so many things would be much more easily solvable.

Life doesn't have value. Human life does though. Human life has value because said value allows for the prosperity of our civilization.

Then human life doesn't have value. It's what one does with that life that has value. A robber, or street thug, or violent gangster does not have this "value" you speak of.

In the bigger picture, nothing has value. However, the smaller the radius of the circle, the more value there might be for some people, even robbers, gangsters etc.

@i_ You have a very shallow and immature philosophy that I would expect to find from a teenager who has done nothing but superficial ideas and stick to them. All human life has value. I define value as allowing my life to be better. My life is better when society isn't crumbling like a society where human life has no value.

And before someone comments on the selfishness of this idea, morality is inherently selfish because its only purpose is to improve the quality of life of that individual. It just so happens that we are a social species, so what improves the quality for one person usually coincides with the quality of the society.

Wondering though, what exactly would be solved with the world in anarchy?

You're mistaking lack of value for life as coinciding with anarchy. This is not the case. If we valued life less, it would be acceptable to beat the shit out of somebody who broke into your house for example. It would be acceptable to shoot somebody mugging you. Not just wanton murder.

I mean in most places its already acceptable to shoot someone that's mugging you. It is also acceptable in most places to beat the shit out of someone breaking into your house.
Any moral code that doesn't allow for you to protect yourself on the basis that human life is to valuable for you to take even in defense of yourself is one that will fail. It WILL die off with the people that have it.
Currently the most effective prison system in the world (Norway) focuses 100% on rehabilitation and recognizes that "punishment" on that level is ineffective and petty. By no coincidence Norway has also abolished capital punishment.
Human life should hold value. A species cannot survive without that and a society cannot survive without that. On a statistical level the places that hold human life in the highest value compared to those that don't have the best lives for their people and function the best as a society.
Also every country has an exact monetary value for a human life.

Perhaps legally defending yourself is protected but socially, beating someone up for trying to beat you up is frowned upon for some reason.

Never in my life have I seen anyone shamed for defending themselves from being attacked except in highschool and lower and the occasional biased lying media reports made of stupidity.

Oh, go on reddit and say you've defended yourself. You'll get comments like
"man fuck you and your /r/iamverybadass bullshit"
"I'll bet you've never picked your fat ass off your sofa"
"you probly cant throw a punch worth shit"

that's not shaming on the idea that defending yourself is morally wrong. That's shaming on the idea that you'll only talking about it to get karma or lying about it ever happening for karma which is a 100% totally different thing.

Which is an extension thereof.

And if you were to tell most people you meet that you once beat someone up because they were trying to beat you up, they'd in all likeliness tell you that you shouldn't have touched them and told a grown-up or some bullshit. See: zero tolerance.

We as a society have an incredibly bad aversion to violence when a good whipping would solve a lot of problems right then and there.

So upon rereading this thread I realized we’ve been arguing something that I never intended to discuss, and consequently doesn’t quite make the point I was intending on making. Let’s start over.
What would you consider to be the most extreme acceptable reaction to these scenarios:
you find a robber in your house
You find this robber fleeing
You are being bullied by a smaller kid in high school
You are bullied by a bigger kid in high school
A child is saying inappropriate stuff
Someone is being verbally abusive to someone else
-
Here are my answers:
Kill them
Kill them
Kick them in the face and kick them again when they’re down
Stab them with a scissor and then kick them
Slap the sound out of them
Beat them up
-
So why are my answers so extreme? Because each of the above are visceral attacks. It’s not hard to not be abusive, not rob, not rape, etc. We know the fundamental rights correct?

Most people would consider freedom of speech and religion to be the most important right. I don’t. I consider the right to be secure in person and property to be the most important. If you go out of your way to invade somebody, hurt them, steal from them, you have no right to be in society. Best case you’re expelled permanently. Worst case you die.

This is what I mean by “I don’t respect life”. If you are so twisted that you can’t respect other’s lives not even in assisting them, but by actively hurting them, we should not respect your life.

you find a robber in your house= shoot them
You find this robber fleeing= killing someone that is fleeing is dishonorable. Give chase or _____if unable then get a picture (everyone always has a camera of some kind)
You are being bullied by a smaller kid in high school = depends on the bullying. If they're _____being physical then smack them in the gob and be done with it. If its verbal either get _____them in trouble with the authorities or smack them in the gob when you can't get caught.
You are bullied by a bigger kid in high school= same as above.
A child is saying inappropriate stuff = physical discipline is scientifically shown to cause _____physiological issues far into adult hood. If you actually give a shit about the kid then _____take non-abusive disiplinary action and if you don't then you have no place doing _____literally anything.
(cont.)

Someone is being verbally abusive to someone else = depends. If the one doing the abusing is an adult and the abused is also an adult then they are possibly stuck in an abusive relationship. In that case you try to find a way to get this person help in a way that doesn't end with the abuser taking it out on them for trying to escape. If its a kid that's being abused you step between them and call the cops and make sure someone video's it. If they try to leave take their picture.
if its a kid abusing an adult then you don't have the full picture because that is insane. A kid abusing a kid depends on if they have any connection to either. If you don't it isn't your place to do anything other than potentially telling one of them to stop being a cunt in more appropriate terms. If you do have a connection to one of the kids you take that kid out of the situation or if you have a connection to both then step in and stop the abuse and make sure the people in charge of the children is notified

So let's address the point I'm trying to get at. Those who can't respect fundamental social norms do not deserve a place in society. The most serious breach of this social contract is hurting someone else. Yes or no?

no to the first yes to the second. Norway is proof that when done right the prison system can very effectively rehabilitate people back into being a functioning member of society.

@i_ you have a very broad sense of value of life. If person A robs someone and then uses that money to buy his family food, the robber has no value in society but has high value in his family. Value in terms of life is relative to those around you. As for your questions stated above, the legal or moral issue of those questions does not reflect the value of the person involved. You speak about these incidences as if there is no other options besides the two. If person breaks into my home, I use any possible resolution before the death of the person. Now if they become violent and I have to choose between their life and the life of another I choose the latter. There is always the chance someone can be rehabilitated and become valuable to society in the sense you speak. It is statistically proven as well as spoken highly of those in the prison system. Another question you brought up was bullying. If you want to talk about bullying then your approach...

Shouldn’t be to retaliate unless necessary. Other people have problems of their own and retaliation doesn’t deal with those problems. If you are infected with bacteria in your finger, you don’t cut the finger off you try to fight the infection.