What is the right to life and why does it exist?

[fakename]

I can’t think of a reason for the right to life:

if there is a right to life then a person is obliged to always live which is absurd.

So why is there a right to life? and if there is a right to life, then why do some people lose this right (like murders or something?).

 

[Nate13]

The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure.

And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Everyone as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

John Locke

 

[fakename]

To: nate13

I think that argument is wrong; technically all things are God’s property so why do we have a right to life and animals and rocks don’t? Also, just because somethings go about God’s work doesn’t mean they can’t be killed; murderers are said to lose their right to life for instance.

All this makes no sense if one says “all the time all men are supposed to live”.

 

[bmullins]

To: nate13

I think that argument is wrong; technically all things are God’s property so why do we have a right to life and animals and rocks don’t? Also, just because somethings go about God’s work doesn’t mean they can’t be killed; murderers are said to lose their right to life for instance.

All this makes no sense if one says “all the time all men are supposed to live”.

Why do animals not have a right to life? And who says murderers lose their right to life?

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly

Animals do indeed have a right to life. In that we are not supposed to simply kill them for the fun of it, or to abuse them. They are God’s creation. While it is permissible to use them for clothing, food, etc; it’s also enjoined on us to not do so needlessly.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Death penalty is a last resort, precisely because of the right to life. The right to life is precisely because God is the one who created life, and God is the one who takes it away. We shouldn’t be playing God.

 

[Nate13]

To: nate13

I think that argument is wrong; technically all things are God’s property so why do we have a right to life and animals and rocks don’t? Also, just because somethings go about God’s work doesn’t mean they can’t be killed; murderers are said to lose their right to life for instance.

All this makes no sense if one says “all the time all men are supposed to live”.

…A rock is not alive. Animals as bmullin’s said do have a right to life. God has given us dominion over the animals though, so a human’s life is always going to trump an animals life. Everything is God’s property yet he has put us above the animals, and our nature makes that obvious. Our ability to reason sets us above the animals and that fact as well as our immortal souls makes a human life more valuable than an animal life should the two come into competition.

Murderer’s do not lose their right to life. They forfeit it when they take another person’s life knowingly and willingly. It is a just punishment for their crime to be punished with the death penalty should society so choose to perform justice in said manner. Whether that method of justice best serves societies interest is another topic entirely.

Also, just because somethings go about God’s work doesn’t mean they can’t be killed; murderers are said to lose their right to life for instance.

Please explain what you mean here. Are you claiming that the murderer was doing God’s work when he murdered someone?

 

[hazmat]

there is none. its made up.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

I can’t think of a reason for the right to life:

if there is a right to life then a person is obliged to always live which is absurd.

Just because you have a right doesn’t mean you are obliged to always invoke it. Take one’s U.S. Constitution Fifth Amendment Rights. You are not obligated to invoke this right when asked to incriminate yourself while testifying. 18 year old citizens have the right to vote. They do not always exercise it. Therefore, just because you cannot always invoke a right doesn’t mean that right doesn’t exist for you.

So why is there a right to life?

Well lets use this definition of a right (thanks Wikipedia): the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

How can you not have a right to live, if you have any rights at all? How can you excercise any rights if your right to life is not respected? If you think there is no right to life, then I think you should conclude there are no rights at all. Let’s take your right to defend yourself with a firearm. Without a right to life, the right to defend yourself seems silly. You may defend yourself because you have a competing right to live shared by the intruder in your home. Liberty itself makes no sense if you have no right to live. The right to life is the most basic of all rights. Once you have life, you can have liberty, speech, free press, property, etc.

and if there is a right to life, then why do some people lose this right (like murders or something?).

Without entering into a debate about whether or not the right to life is inalienable and what that means, I think it’s evident from other rights that we have that our ability to exercise our rights can be abridged by the state or others. I have the right of “free association.” Just because the state prevents me and my pals from protesting on Lake Shore drive in Chicago during rush hour, doesn’t mean that I have no free association right. For the good of the competing rights of others, my individual right can be abridged. So, you definitely can’t disprove the right to life simply because this right can be abridged.

 

[puzzleannie]

the right to life is exactly what it says the right for any human being who has been created by God to live at the time God brings him into life, and die at the time God determines. That right is protected (not granted, but guaranteed) by the US Constitution, or was until that document was suspended by the Supreme Court in 1973. We are de facto operating outside constitutional law since that time. Proof of that is the systematic suspension of other subsidiary rights, also guranteed (not granted) such as freedom of religion which has been pretty much demolished by successive health care legislation in this administration.

 

[Nate13]

there is none. its made up.

I hope your not an American haha.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Murderer’s do not lose their right to life. They forfeit it when they take another person’s life knowingly and willingly. It is a just punishment for their crime to be punished with the death penalty should society so choose to perform justice in said manner.

When you say the murderer forfeits his right to life as distinct from losing that right, I think the only grounds on which that distinction can be made is if forfeiting involves a free choice while losing does not. And it may be that the murderer did make a free choice to kill unjustly, and he may have known that death is a potential penalty for doing so. But that does not mean he freely gave up his right to life. He most likely thought he could get away with it without being caught. In fact, in the end, his right to life is most certainly taken from him by the execution of the death penalty. Now such a loss of his right to life may be entirely just. But it is still correct to say that he “loses” his right to life.

 

[alvanorichie]

right to life i think do what u wana do in rightful manner, like i wear hanes clothing now, lol

 

[fakename]

To: All posters.

I understand a lot of your responses but I’m still not convinced I know what the right to life is.

For instance, if the right to life is deduced from the very nature of being human (which is how I understood it) then it could never be forfeited or alienated. So although one can give up some rights, this right seems to be totally essential.

Therefore, to give up or have this right abridged makes no sense under any circumstance.

But if the right to life is simply derivative of the skills of man then why is it even called a right to life, when the words “right to life” implies (to me) that people should not be killed no matter what. In reality the “right to life” would instead mean “If you have skills to realize, then one should live”. Is that what it means? And since all humans have some skill (or potential for skills) which is valuable to at least them, then everyone has a right to life?

But then how do murderers forfeit this right?

As to the question of whether murderers are doing God’s work that’s not what I meant. I meant that anyone as far as they exist are doing God’s work so why are murderers executed?

And finally, animals don’t have rights to life since ethics and rights are properly the concomitants of rational creatures. Animals shouldn’t be killed for no reason, but that’s because God made them and not because there is commutative justice and debt b/t animals and men.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…if the right to life is deduced from the very nature of being human (which is how I understood it) then it could never be forfeited or alienated…

But if the right to life is simply derivative of the skills of man then why is it even called a right to life…

By summarizing the situation this way you have created a false dichotomy - as if the “right to life” had to be one or the other. Into which of these two categories would you place an understanding of the right to life that says that it is a right granted by God but allowed by God to be forfeit under certain conditions?

 

[DexUK]

The right to life is simple.

By virtue of having that property of existence called ‘life’, no person may be deprived of that ‘life’ by means of another person’s act.

The right to life is the right to exist until such time as one naturally declines and passes away.

The right to life is the right to freely seek to preserve one’s life in the face of existential threats such as illness or injury or the threat of violence being imposed upon one by a third party.

The right to life begins at the moment at which life comes into being. So from conception until natural death no person may have their life taken away by another’s actions unless they themselves are threatening the life of another person. That is to say, the other person is entitled to defend themselves, if necessary by deadly force, but at no time to use more force than that which they require in order to save themselves. (Eg, if someone is threatening to kill you while they’re drunk, you don’t just kill them, you escape if you can, or stall for time until the drunk sobers up enough to stop wishing to murder you. Then you throw away their alcohol.)

The right to life is distilled into Christ’s great commandment: to love one another as one would oneself be loved. If you love someone, you don’t kill them. They are required to love you enough that they won’t kill you either.

 

[He_Man]

right to life i think do what u wana do in rightful manner, like i wear hanes clothing now, lol

Hocking undies on Catholic Answers - a new low.

In before ban!

 

[manualman]

For instance, if the right to life is deduced from the very nature of being human (which is how I understood it) then it could never be forfeited or alienated. So although one can give up some rights, this right seems to be totally essential.

Therefore, to give up or have this right abridged makes no sense under any circumstance.

But if the right to life is simply derivative of the skills of man then why is it even called a right to life, when the words “right to life” implies (to me) that people should not be killed no matter what. In reality the “right to life” would instead mean “If you have skills to realize, then one should live”. Is that what it means? And since all humans have some skill (or potential for skills) which is valuable to at least them, then everyone has a right to life?

But then how do murderers forfeit this right?

Human being possess an innate dignity by their very humanity. Humanity has been uniquely made in the image and likeness of God himself. Nothing else in creation has that stature. This dignity is not dependent upon the capacity, abilities or achievements of the person in question, but by their very nature.

Murder is NEVER justified (properly defined). But because of sin, human behavior sometimes brings conflicts that must be resolved by assessing principles. If an aggressor attempts to wound or kill a person in violation of that person’s most basic rights, that person has the right to use force, even deadly force to prevent that injustice. The primary goal is to prevent the injustice, not “waste” the bad guy. If the only means of preventing the injustice is the death of the agressor, that is the better of the two outcomes. Obviously this does NOT apply to an ‘aggressor’ shoplifting a pack of gum, or even stealing your car. It does apply to someone attempting to directly cause you serious harm.

The death penalty in current catholic teaching is only justified in similar circumstances, when a society (instead of an individual) lacks other means of protecting the innocent against an aggressor who is likely to commit further crimes.

Same goes for ‘just war’ scenarios.

I’m not entirely sure where your difficulty lies. Are you saying that you approve of the death penalty as retribution for killers and are having trouble reconciling that with catholic teaching? No wonder…

 

[John21652]

there is none. its made up.

If that is the case, then there is no right to liberty and no right to own property.

Do you have anything worth taking?
Would you make a good slave?
If not, we’ll just kill you, take your stuff and move on…

 

[rom422]

One must distinguish between the right and the exercise of the right. If I own a house, then I sure have a right to use it. But for just reasons the law can prevent me from exercising that right, for example, by putting me in jail. Of course, I still have the right to use the house while I am in jail, but by keeping me in jail the law has effectively deprived me of the ability to* exercise* that right.

The same distinction applies to the right to life. No one can really take away your right to life because it is a natural and inalienable human right. It belongs to you just because you are human. You can’t lose it, or forfeit it, as long as you are human, because it is not an accident, but a property of your human nature. However, you can, for just reasons, be deprived of the ability to exercise that right. Indeed, this important distinction between your right to life and your ability to exercise that right, is the only reason why killing an unjust aggressor is justified in the case of self-defense. For you are not depriving an unjust aggressor of his right to life, but simply incapacitating him from the exercise of that right.

I understand where some people have a problem with this distinction between the right and the exercise of the right. But it is a valid distinction. As a citizen, for example, you might have a right to vote. During an election, however, you might abstain from exercising that right without losing your right. The exercise of the right to life, however, is somewhat problematic in the sense that you can only deprive a person of the ability to exercise that right by killing the person. And, of course, when you kill the person, then that person becomes a corpse and ceases to be human - and, not being human, the corpse possesses no more rights. So, when a person dies, he does not merely lose the ability to exercise his right to live, but also loses his right to live. But from your standpoint, you did not during self-defense rob him of his right to live, but simply stopped him from exercising that right.

 

[hazmat]

If that is the case, then there is no right to liberty and no right to own property.

Do you have anything worth taking?
Would you make a good slave?
If not, we’ll just kill you, take your stuff and move on…

rights are all made up. i can be robbed, imprisoned, killed, beaten, etc., at any point in time. whoever did such things to me would likely face consequences imposed by society, but im still robbed or killed regardless. rights make no difference; theyre immaterial.

 

[John21652]

rights are all made up. i can be robbed, imprisoned, killed, beaten, etc., at any point in time. whoever did such things to me would likely face consequences imposed by society, but im still robbed or killed regardless. rights make no difference; theyre immaterial.

If you have no rights, then why would society impose consequences on me if I either enslave you, kill you and take all your stuff?