Right to life.. right to anything?

[R_Daneel]

What is the proper definition of “rights”? According to wikipedia:

“Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral **freedoms **to act or refrain from acting, or **entitlements **to be acted upon or not acted upon.”

Not a bad definition. To put it into simpler words:

“A right is granted by the strong one to a weaker one. It says that the weaker one is **allowed **to do something without fear of repercussion.”

In this context, the goverment grants certain rights to the people, and those rights vary from case to case, from goverment to govermment, and from age to age. There are no universal rights - though it would be nice if there were. Of course this “grant” is pretty meaningless, if it cannot be enforced. The goverment may tell you, that you have a “right to life, libery and the pursuit of happiness”. How nice. But can it ensure it? Not really. If someone decides to take your life away, the goverment is powerless to prevent it. To punish the one who did not respect your life does not offer any consolation to the one who already has been murdered.

Now, God could ensure your right to life. But he does not. If someone plans to kill you, then God supposedly knows about this intent, and has the power to prevent it. But he does not. So those supposedly “God given rights” are just as meaningless as the rights granted by the goverment. In the case of goverment, it is unable to protect your rights, in the case of God, he is unwilling to do it.

There is a wonderful saying: “those who do not read, are no better off than those who cannot read”. To paraphrase it we obtain: “if your rights are not enforced, they are no better than having no rights at all”.

Sad, but there you go. Sometimes reality is not pleasant. But facing it is always better than hiding your head in the sand.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

What we call the “sacredness of human life” is no more than a passing breath, if it is not guaranteed by God. Every war, every abortion, every murder, every death in fact is a denial of that statement, unless God is going to be the guarantor.

Christ Himself, who was God in the flesh, was killed by human intent, unjustly, cynically, and by the religious and secular authorities of the time.

God’s guarantee however was the resurrection. Man could kill the body, but as Christ said, “could do no more.” His advice was to “fear God. Yes, Him you should fear, who has the authority to cast both body and soul into Hell”.

He guarantees judgment as well. “I tell you, on the day of judgment, a man will account for every useless word.”

It all depends on God in the end.

 

[Thing]

What is the proper definition of “rights”? According to wikipedia:

“Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral **freedoms **to act or refrain from acting, or **entitlements **to be acted upon or not acted upon.”

Not a bad definition. To put it into simpler words:

“A right is granted by the strong one to a weaker one. It says that the weaker one is **allowed **to do something without fear of repercussion.”

In this context, the goverment grants certain rights to the people, and those rights vary from case to case, from goverment to govermment, and from age to age. There are no universal rights - though it would be nice if there were. Of course this “grant” is pretty meaningless, if it cannot be enforced. The goverment may tell you, that you have a “right to life, libery and the pursuit of happiness”. How nice. But can it ensure it? Not really. If someone decides to take your life away, the goverment is powerless to prevent it. To punish the one who did not respect your life does not offer any consolation to the one who already has been murdered.

Now, God could ensure your right to life. But he does not. If someone plans to kill you, then God supposedly knows about this intent, and has the power to prevent it. But he does not. So those supposedly “God given rights” are just as meaningless as the rights granted by the goverment. In the case of goverment, it is unable to protect your rights, in the case of God, he is unwilling to do it.

There is a wonderful saying: “those who do not read, are no better off than those who cannot read”. To paraphrase it we obtain: “if your rights are not enforced, they are no better than having no rights at all”.

Sad, but there you go. Sometimes reality is not pleasant. But facing it is always better than hiding your head in the sand.

I never fully got that ‘right’ to life thing, either. I did’nt create myself, so I cannot claim an actual right to life in that regard. Life was given to me, (for a reason), and it is that givers right to remove life from me.
Of course there are more important things than life or death, there is eternal life and eternal death.

 

[momor]

Now, God could ensure your right to life. But he does not. If someone plans to kill you, then God supposedly knows about this intent, and has the power to prevent it. But he does not. So those supposedly “God given rights” are just as meaningless as the rights granted by the goverment. In the case of goverment, it is unable to protect your rights, in the case of God, he is unwilling to do it.

Only if you assume that your life ends when you die an earthly death.

 

[R_Daneel]

You guys are so literal. The “right to life” is just an example. If the goverment grants you “right to liberty” (just another example), and cannot prevent someone from kidnapping you, then the “right to liberty” is just an empty phrase. Even if they happen to free you later, this act cannot retroactively protect your liberty, can it? Now you may argue that the restored freedom is all that matters, and the kidnapped and imprisoned period of your life is irrelevant, but that would be irrational. Just like assuming that there is a continued “after-life”, this assumption does not diminish the atrocity of having this life being interrupted and brought to a premature end.

My conclusion remains the same: if a right cannot be guaranteed, if it cannot be protected, it is no better than having no rights at all.

 

[momor]

You guys are so literal. The “right to life” is just an example. If the goverment grants you “right to liberty” (just another example), and cannot prevent someone from kidnapping you, then the “right to liberty” is just an empty phrase. Even if they happen to free you later, this act cannot retroactively protect your liberty, can it? Now you may argue that the restored freedom is all that matters, and the kidnapped and imprisoned period of your life is irrelevant, but that would be irrational. **Just like assuming that there is a continued “after-life”, this assumption does not diminish the atrocity of having this life being interrupted and brought to a premature end. **
My conclusion remains the same: if a right cannot be guaranteed, if it cannot be protected, it is no better than having no rights at all.

I’m sure my answer will frustrate you but you are posting on a Catholic forum after all.

You are operating under some mighty big assumptions, clearly formed by your lack of faith in a God. Some people, martyrs to the faith for instance, would reject your assumtion that life after death with God does not diminish the atrocity of death. They (and I) would claim that the real atrocity is believing and acting as if this life is all there is. When a person believes that, then perhaps ‘rights’ in this life become overly important.

 

[manygift1spirit]

A couple of points:

It is not the right job of government to grant rights. It can only affirm them, and facilitate their protection. When it does the inverse (denying rights, or enabling or even codifying their infringment) we have a significant problem.

Now, it is true that it is often difficult to prevent certain rights from being infringed without doing even more infringing. But that is not any deficiency in the definition of rights. It is rather a consequence of free will. If you wish rights to have the same status as (say) conservation laws of physics (I am interpreting your discussion to be headed in that direction), then one needs to forego free will.

There is no quandary.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

You guys are so literal. The “right to life” is just an example. If the goverment grants you “right to liberty” (just another example), and cannot prevent someone from kidnapping you, then the “right to liberty” is just an empty phrase. Even if they happen to free you later, this act cannot retroactively protect your liberty, can it? Now you may argue that the restored freedom is all that matters, and the kidnapped and imprisoned period of your life is irrelevant, but that would be irrational. Just like assuming that there is a continued “after-life”, this assumption does not diminish the atrocity of having this life being interrupted and brought to a premature end.

My conclusion remains the same: if a right cannot be guaranteed, if it cannot be protected, it is no better than having no rights at all.

It’s no better to have unguaranteed freedom than not to have freedom?

That is absurd. In fact, it’s very similar to the rationale used to justify mercy killings or mercy abortions: he’s going to suffer, so he’s better off dead. Says who? A life of suffering is better than no life at all. Given the fact that one must be alive in order to have the chance at eternal life, the gift of life is truly a gift.

Thus, the lack of a “guarantee” for one’s rights does not suggest the rights are meaningless or not worth having.

Peace,
Dante

 

[dusza]

If a right is to be equated with a guarantee, then there’s no point in law since nothing can be guaranteed as long as a person is free to violate law. If a person is not free to violate law, then there’s no point in enumerating any rights or having law.

It would seem that a right is a guarantee of remedy and retribution after the fact. I think what you’re after rights as only God has them. This is why Christian philosophers have always said that true freedom is only found in God, the author of freedom and thus the only One who can guarantee anything.

 

[momor]

If a right is to be equated with a guarantee, then there’s no point in law since nothing can be guaranteed as long as a person is free to violate law. If a person is not free to violate law, then there’s no point in enumerating any rights or having law.

It would seem that a right is a guarantee of remedy and retribution after the fact. I think what you’re after rights as only God has them. This is why Christian philosophers have always said that true freedom is only found in God, the author of freedom and thus the only One who can guarantee anything.

Your logic is perfect. Well done!

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m sure my answer will frustrate you but you are posting on a Catholic forum after all.

You are operating under some mighty big assumptions, clearly formed by your lack of faith in a God. Some people, martyrs to the faith for instance, would reject your assumtion that life after death with God does not diminish the atrocity of death. They (and I) would claim that the real atrocity is believing and acting as if this life is all there is. When a person believes that, then perhaps ‘rights’ in this life become overly important.

Fortunately, nothing frustrates me. Nothing even surprises me any more.

Your reasoning is simple: “nothing matters in this life - everything will be honkey-dorey in the afterlife”. So why worry? This is a perfect example of wishful thinking. Well, it is your life. The funny thing is that all your actions refute your own words. You care if you are deprived of something that you value - here and now. You care if you are hungry - here and now. You care if you are sick - here and now. You seek remedy - here and now. Here and now matters, even to you.

 

[R_Daneel]

It is not the right job of government to grant rights.

That is NOT the definition of rights.

 

[R_Daneel]

It’s no better to have unguaranteed freedom than not to have freedom?

Oh, it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, I bet. But that is not better than facing reality.

A life of suffering is better than no life at all.

I would love to see you substantiate this.

Given the fact that one must be alive in order to have the chance at eternal life, the gift of life is truly a gift.

That is not a “fact”, that is nonsense. God could create you directly into that “eternal” life. Do you think that God is so powerless that he **could not **do it?

 

[Thing]

You guys are so literal. The “right to life” is just an example. If the goverment grants you “right to liberty” (just another example), and cannot prevent someone from kidnapping you, then the “right to liberty” is just an empty phrase. Even if they happen to free you later, this act cannot retroactively protect your liberty, can it? Now you may argue that the restored freedom is all that matters, and the kidnapped and imprisoned period of your life is irrelevant, but that would be irrational. Just like assuming that there is a continued “after-life”, this assumption does not diminish the atrocity of having this life being interrupted and brought to a premature end.

My conclusion remains the same: if a right cannot be guaranteed, if it cannot be protected, it is no better than having no rights at all.

The right to life as in e.g. the Thou Shalt Not Kill command, you are probably right, will not make much sense to you apart from a Creator, an Afterlife and a Final Judgement.

But humans are funny 'ol things. Almost every ancient culture I’ve heard of has a supernatural idea of justice or final rewards. It seems to be almost a natural part of being human, to believe that somewhere, somehow, justice will finally be done to the kidnapper or murderer.
The ancient celts had a nice idea about the afterlife where the seller of something, maybe a bronze or iron axe, would say to the purchaser -'Hey, you don’t have all the money for this, you can pay me in the afterlife. ’

 

[R_Daneel]

If a right is to be equated with a guarantee, then there’s no point in law since nothing can be guaranteed as long as a person is free to violate law. If a person is not free to violate law, then there’s no point in enumerating any rights or having law.

No, that is not true. I did not equate “rights” with a “guarantee”. I said that a right without a guarantee is pretty useless.

Just look at history. The US goverment declared many rights. Some of the rights were not even enumerated, like property rights, since the Founding Fathers considered it self-evident. Which included your right to keep your money. There was no income tax, back then. All of a sudden the goverment declared that it needed money, and introduced income tax. It even promised that it will be temporary. Your “rights” to keep and own your money was abolished. On paper, you “own” your house, once you paid for it. In reality, you don’t. There is a property tax, and if you default on it, your house will be taken away. Or just try and attempt to give your (fully paid property) to another goverment, like communist China. Or a friendly goverment, like the United Kingdom.

No, my friend. We don’t have rights. The goverment allows us to play Monopoly as long as it wants. All those rights can be revoked in a heartbeat.

It would seem that a right is a guarantee of remedy and retribution after the fact. I think what you’re after rights as only God has them. This is why Christian philosophers have always said that true freedom is only found in God, the author of freedom and thus the only One who can guarantee anything.

And then why does he not do it? Is he lazy, or something?

 

[R_Daneel]

But humans are funny 'ol things. Almost every ancient culture I’ve heard of has a supernatural idea of justice or final rewards. It seems to be almost a natural part of being human, to believe that somewhere, somehow, justice will finally be done to the kidnapper or murderer.

Exactly. It was the injustice and the lack of hope to remedy those injustices that “pushed” people into wishful thinking. It sure takes courage to look at life straight in the eye and accept it as not fair. Life is a “female dog”, and then you die. Most people lack this courage. Poor suckers.

 

[Thing]

Exactly. It was the injustice and the lack of hope to remedy those injustices that “pushed” people into wishful thinking. It sure takes courage to look at life straight in the eye and accept it as not fair. Life is a “female dog”, and then you die. Most people lack this courage. Poor suckers.

Some people find it easier to climb a mountain than to say a prayer, on the offchance.

 

[Thing]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dusza
It would seem that a right is a guarantee of remedy and retribution after the fact. I think what you’re after rights as only God has them. This is why Christian philosophers have always said that true freedom is only found in God, the author of freedom and thus the only One who can guarantee anything.

He guaranteed that if you look for Him you will find Him.

seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you

 

[momor]

Exactly. It was the injustice and the lack of hope to remedy those injustices that “pushed” people into wishful thinking. It sure takes courage to look at life straight in the eye and accept it as not fair. Life is a “female dog”, and then you die. Most people lack this courage. Poor suckers.

I think it’s actually far easier to go through life with your attitude than it is to live life in imitation of Christ. That’s where the real courage is.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

in the case of God, he is unwilling to do it.

G-d could prevent every evil act. doing so would be violating free will, making us nothing but robots.