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

[hazmat]

sure it can; people violate the rights of others all the time. people get raped, people get robbed, people get killed. im not saying people dont establish rules to guide behavior the way they want, but unalienable/natural/inherent rights run into problems in the real world.

 

[Nate13]

sure it can; people violate the rights of others all the time. people get raped, people get robbed, people get killed. im not saying people dont establish rules to guide behavior the way they want, but unalienable/natural/inherent rights run into problems in the real world.

Locke responds…

In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure of God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security, and so he becomes dangerous to mankind and in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of Nature.

John Locke

however he then describes the role of government:

Self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends; and, on the other side, ill-nature, passion, and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others, and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow, and that therefore God has certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men. I easily grant that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of Nature…

John Locke

And thus we learn the true purpose of government with respect to our rights. Its to constrain men and make sure they carry out the laws of Nature justly.

 

[hazmat]

responds to what? that doesnt conflict with what im saying. so a guy offends many because he wants to, and the many punish him for this because they want to.

 

[Nate13]

responds to what? that doesnt conflict with what im saying. so a guy offends many because he wants to, and the many punish him for this because they want to.

That the fact that some people ignore other people’s rights does not mean that rights do not exist…

Objective Reality exists, and rights exist. Just because some people choose to ignore Reality and live in their own reality does not mean true Reality ceases to exist or becomes irrelevant. Saying everyone lives in their own reality and no reality is better than another is moral relativism. It doesn’t matter if you think this Reality we are in was all a matter of chance or was created by God. The fact is we live in this Reality not whatever reality we want to. People who do not recognize this are dangerous to society.

 

[hazmat]

everyone is confined to the same reality. the issue is everyone doesnt subscribe to the same ideals, and having ideals is nothing more than just that.

 

[Nate13]

everyone is confined to the same reality. the issue is everyone doesnt subscribe to the same ideals, and having ideals is nothing more than just that.

Natural law is reality. The nature of a thing is its reality… I’m glad you understand the importance of there being one reality, but recognize what that means. If someone denies the nature of something they are denying reality. When someone denies reality they became a danger to society because they embrace moral relativism. It does not take a lot of explanation to show why denying Reality is a bad thing… Inalienable rights describe Reality. So please understand why I raise an eyebrow when you deny inalienable rights exist. Its the same as saying Reality does not exist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The current law and whether he gets caught or not has nothing to do with it. By the standards of natural law, when you murder someone you are effectively saying your life is forfeit period. Ignorance of this is not an excuse. It’s self evident.

“Effectively” is not the same thing as “actually”. Having your life forfeit may be the effect of murdering someone, but the murderer is certainly not acquiescing to that fact. He fully expects to get away with it - to avoid the penalty. He knows full well what that penalty is. He is not ignorant of it. What is wrong with using the much more clear statement: “If your murder unjustly you will lose your right to life.” ? That is, your life will be taken from you whether you are willing or not.

 

[Nate13]

“Effectively” is not the same thing as “actually”. Having your life forfeit may be the effect of murdering someone, but the murderer is certainly not acquiescing to that fact. He fully expects to get away with it - to avoid the penalty. He knows full well what that penalty is. He is not ignorant of it. What is wrong with using the much more clear statement: “If your murder unjustly you will lose your right to life.” ? That is, your life will be taken from you whether you are willing or not.

yeah Rom422 described it better than I did:

The right to life is a moral property of human nature. Therefore, you cannot really give up your right to life anymore than you can give up being a man. When you give up your life (say, for a good cause), then you are merely giving up the ability to exercise that right, but you are not giving up your right to life. You also cannot sell it, or transfer it. This is why it is called an inalienable right. No one can take it away from you, not even yourself. This does not mean that no one can take away your life, but only that they can’t take away your right to life.

 

[hazmat]

Natural law is reality. The nature of a thing is its reality… I’m glad you understand the importance of there being one reality, but recognize what that means. If someone denies the nature of something they are denying reality. When someone denies reality they became a danger to society because they embrace moral relativism. It does not take a lot of explanation to show why denying Reality is a bad thing… Inalienable rights describe Reality. So please understand why I raise an eyebrow when you deny inalienable rights exist. Its the same as saying Reality does not exist.

thats just what you say. how do you distinguish between a law in nature and a law that isnt in nature? your view seems to hinge on popularity. and its not enough to simply say rights are unalienable; it must be demonstrable if its true. what are the characteristics of an unalienable right, and how do these manifest in reality?

 

[fakename]

I think I’ve got it all now.

Let me add also that rights oblige one to not do something but obligations make one do something.

 

[Nate13]

thats just what you say. how do you distinguish between a law in nature and a law that isnt in nature? your view seems to hinge on popularity. and its not enough to simply say rights are unalienable; it must be demonstrable if its true. what are the characteristics of an unalienable right, and how do these manifest in reality?

Laws of nature are self-evident through observation. I’m perfectly willing to have a discussion on what the true nature of certain parts or beings is, as long as we establish that there is a nature. An objective nature of human beings exist though, because an objective reality exists. Our reproductive systems have an objective inherent nature as well that reflects reality. The name itself reflects that scientists as well as ourselves are able to establish the nature of the genitalia of the human body. The Church teaches that every act of sex must be procreative and unitive by nature of the act itself. Now you can disagree with the Church’s view of what that nature is if you would like, but you should agree there is a specific nature to it that reflects reality.

 

[hazmat]

that doesnt address how you arrive at unalienable/natural rights. try this exercise: name one unalienable right, then explain how it is unalienable–not why you think it is unalienable or should be, but how it is unalienable.

 

[Nate13]

that doesnt address how you arrive at unalienable/natural rights. try this exercise: name one unalienable right, then explain how it is unalienable–not why you think it is unalienable or should be, but how it is unalienable.

Its inherent human nature to want to live. Our bodies naturally want to live and are made to fight to live as long as possible. If we don’t want to live, or our bodies seem to be operating in a way that is against wanting to live, something is going wrong. If your immune system is attacking healthy cells in your body instead of working as it should and attacking foreign entities that should not be there, something is wrong. The inalienable right to life is a recognition of this self evident truth. If you are an American you should feel fortunate to live in one of the few countries that recognizes this right as something that is not given by a government but rather comes from our Creator whoever you believe that to be.

Its inalienable because it is its nature. You appear to be questioning whether human capability to reason has any bearing on reality. I’m here to tell you that yes it does, even if we are not guaranteed that it will always do so perfectly. I have faith that science as well as my own observations of human beings are accurate in determining the nature of humanity. We describe the nature of things all the time, and our existence depends on our ability to do so. If we could not describe the purpose of the heart in the body and its nature we would struggle to help a great many people on Earth who struggled with conditions relating to their heart. If I do not know the nature of a human heart and its purpose how can I determine whether it is working properly or not or make any relevant recommendation in regard to it?

 

[hazmat]

that doesnt address how you arrive at unalienable/natural rights. try this exercise: name one unalienable right, then explain how it is unalienable–not why you think it is unalienable or should be, but how it is unalienable.

youre answering why, not how (which is what i asked). you presuppose that its unalienable to answer why; thats not what im looking for.

q: “how is it unalienable”
a: “Its inalienable because it is its nature.”

the appropriate answer to the “how” question would be worded something like:

“its inalienable by…”

 

[Nate13]

youre answering why, not how (which is what i asked). you presuppose that its unalienable to answer why; thats not what im looking for.

q: “how is it unalienable”
a: “Its inalienable because it is its nature.”

the appropriate answer to the “how” question would be worded something like:

“its inalienable by…”

Let me try to break this down again for you because I think this is just a misunderstanding of terms.

Definition of inalienable first of all:

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: “inalienable human rights”.

This is synonymous with the word “nature”. If we can agree that a human being has an unchanging inherent nature that is based in Reality then we agree that inalienable rights exist. If I say something is an unalienable right, that statement is just reflecting the fact that something has a certain nature that alone reflects reality.

For example:
The nature of a human being is to want to live. Its apparent that our bodies have been designed to fight to live till our last breath, and conscientiously human beings want to live. This establishes part of the nature of a human being.

Its inalienable because as you agreed earlier there is only one true nature to things in this one true Reality. Thus a person’s nature is unchangeable and fits the definition above for inalienable. I can’t take away another person’s nature. Thus you see why “nature” and inalienable end up being practically synonyms by definition.

Now we transition to why its a right.

Definition of a right:

That which is morally correct, just, or honorable

If something is in accord with a person’s nature that is how we determine whether something is good, proper, just, or morally correct. This is an objective standard at least as far as you consider our ability to determine the nature of a thing to be objective. Like I said I have faith in our ability to reason, and life is literally worthless if you do not.

Thus you end up with inalienable rights.

 

[vera_dicere]

I don’t like the term “right to life” but its the best we got, because a “right to be left alone and not be killed” is too much of a mouthful.

Saying someone living has a right to life is like saying you have a rigth to skin. How do you have a right to something you already have?

All of us have life. We have the right to not have that taken away by others without moral justification, ie. we’ve opened fire with an AK47 in a pre-school and someone shoots us to stop us.

Human life begins at conception, the moment sperm and ovum finish their little connection a new human being exists, and that human being is alive, things like abortion take away life from that human being. Abortion is murder. Euthanasia is murder. Murder is murder.

God gave us life, and only God can take it from us, whether that’s the unforunate miscarriage of an 8 week old foetus whose mother is too unwell and malnourished to maintain the pregnancy or the 89 year old woman who’s heart is giving out.

Allow life to take its course, from conception to natural death. That’s the “right to life” as much as can be expressed.

 

[hazmat]

nate: i dont disagree that the nature of a thing is its nature, and unchangeable. things are only what they are at any given point in time, but over the span of multiple points in time, things change. people can be alive in one instant, and then murdered the next. i dont see how rights are unalienable because i dont see where they leave any trace that they are. if you name one unalienable right, and one right that is not unalienable, on what basis do you distinguish these? what does unalienable mean in your view, in this context?

 

[John21652]

John: people think and feel all sorts of things. yes, you can say they think they have a right to life and stuff; i dont disagree with that.

Hazmat, sorry for not responding for a while, but I’ve been busy off screen.

You wrote the above in response to my post #31, in which I wrote the following -

Let’s look at the first sentence you wrote …

So, you began by writing “sure, people think they have rights to their life and stuff…”

We arrived at the fact that most people would feel that way. Correct?

If you agree that most people think they have a right to their life and stuff, then we can state that it is an objective truth about people that they think they have a right to their lives and stuff.

Agreed?

Now please, for the moment, forget that people think and feel about all sorts of stuff. For the moment we are juct concentrating on the fact that most people hink they have a right to their life and stuff. You agreed with that. Correct?

So, again, if most people think and feel that they have a right to their lives and their belongings, or, to phrase it slightly differently, they think and feel that they should be left alone to enjoy their life and their stuff without the fear of being killed and/or deprived of their stuff. We know that people feel strongly about these things because they will go to whatever lengths are necessary to protect their lives and belongings, or property. You agree? We also know that most people will, under normal circumstances, go to great lengths to protect their lives. Thus, we can say that the desire to protect one’s life is an innate aspect of being human. The protection of that life stems from a strong desire to remain alive and in dealing with threats it is considered a reasonable form of behaviour to kill another human or an animal which poses an obvious and immediate threat to one’s life. Because this attitude to life is an innate aspect of being human we can therefore state that the right to life is an innate natural desire of human beings. In fact, it would be considered abnormal to feel and believe otherwise. Agreed?

Therefore, objectively, human beings have a natural right to life and property. We say this because that right to life can be recognised by anyone and everyone and is common to all mankind. Thus, the right to life is universal and mind independent and is an objectively discernable aspect of human beings. It is a Natural Law right.

I notice that you are arguing with others about that Natural Law right being “inalienable”. All that means is that it is a recognised aspect of being a human being. I could come along and chop your head off. You would be minus a head, but that doesn’t mean heads aren’t a necessary part of being a human being. Heads are inalienable to human beings. I could come along and kill you and take your stuff. That doesn’t mean your right to life and your right to property are inalienable. "inalienable’ means part of the very nature of being a human being; an intrinsic aspect of being human. Given a chance, you’d do whatever it took to look after your head and your stuff as well. That’s because you, like everyone else, thinks no-one has to the right to come and take off your head!
From discerning that you wish to preserve your life, we say your life ought to be protected. It is then a Moral edict that your life ought to be protected. Morals, after all, are rules for living. Mankind, being a social being, needs such rules so he can live socially in harmony.

In an earlier post you said that if I came along and either killed you, or enslaved you and took your stuff, that society would probably do me some harm. Why is that do you think? Well, it’s because everyone recognises that each and everyone of us has the right to live and enjoy our lives without the threat of someone else coming along and taking our life from us. So society, that is, mankind acting socially, has implemented a “law” that says because everyone thinks they have a right to live their lives without the threat of it being taken away then everyone ought to behave accordingly and anyone who does not recognise that right to life and who kills another will be dealt with harshly. Anyone who has transgressed your Natural Law right to life will have acted immorally

Now someone may indeed come along and kill you. That, however, doesn’t mean that you never had the Natural Law right to life. It just means that someone else transgressed that right, which is inalienable to your humaness’; your personhood. And that right, which was inalienable, intrinsic to you as a human being, will be recognised by your fellow citizens and the offender punished harshly.

When you say the natural law right to life is “invented”, you are nearly correct, but not quite. It is not invented, but ‘discerned’. The law of the land is then constructed from a readily identifiable aspect of what it is to be a human being. It is natural, or innate, to human beings that they wish to live and to preserve their lives and it is is the nature of human beings act to defend their lives when and as necessary. Mankind, in society, has recognised this right to life and has enshrined it in the law of the land as a recognised Natural Law right.

 

[hazmat]

john: no worries. i agree up until the “therefore, objectively” part. i agree to the existence of common, natural inclinations (which you described), but the fulfillment of these inclinations isnt an objective pursuit in my view, because my definition of objective requires for there to be no bias, prejudice, or personal feelings involved.

assuming i would die if beheaded, id lose the life im naturally inclined to guard. true. but i do not agree with this statement: “it is objectively wrong to chop off my head.” the statement is unqualified, categorical. beheading is the right course of action if one means to kill, therefore, i do not view it as wrong in every context. i view its wrongness (unqualified) as relative.

as far as unalienable… lets pretend there is no government. you have the right to have a gay relationship, and the right to life. you subscribe to unalienable rights; you might say the right to life is unalienable, but the right to gay relationships is not. is there an unalienable right to liberty? how do you decide whats unalienable and what isnt?

 

[SheepofChrist]

I wouldn’t say there is a right to life. Life is a privilege–you shouldn’t take it for granted. Something could happen to you anytime, you should thank God for the years HE has kept you alive. This explains why some live longer than others. It (your destiny) is written by God.

If you are asking what the purpose of life is, I’d say to achieve your goals and make the best out of life. From a Catholic perspective, I’d say God made you to love and to serve Him–you are alive mainly, to chose to follow God or not to. Also, you should evangelize.

The Catholic Church is very skeptical when it comes to the topic “Life” e.g. there are taboos such as contraception, abortion etc. Life is not a thing to be played around with, if you’re pregnant/or got someone pregnant you should face the consequences and take on your parenting responsibility

Sorry, but I don’t have the time now to the replies apart from your main post, but I do hope I gave you some insight.