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

[John21652]

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.

It’s no good having a “your definition” or “my definition” of what “objective” means. We need to qualify our terms or we can’t have a meaningful discussion.

For something to be considered as “objective” it must be something that can be discerned as mind independent and universal. In other words, whatever it is that is called objective must be able to be recognised by many minds, or even by all minds and it must be something that is diswcrrnable evrywhere, in different places and at different times. That means that whatever is to be considered as objective must be discernable by everyone and everywhere. That is what I meant when I used the terms universal and mind independent. They are commonly accepted requisites for objectivity. That is how science arrives at objective truths. As you stated, there are no subjective feelings, bias, or predjudice involved in discerning something as being objective.

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.”

I never made the statement that it is objectively wrong to chop off your head. What you are getting at is the possibility that it is objectively wrong to kill. It is objectively wrong to kill without due cause, which usually refers to protecting your own life and/or the lives of others. It is not objectively wrong to kill per se. If that were the case, then it would be wrong to defend your own life and to take another’s life if that is what is required. Natural Law allows you to defend your own life and to even kill in self defense. It is this propensity to protect our own lives when threatened which allows us to discern that most people value their own lives.

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.

We are not talking about the wrongness or otherwise of killing. We are talking about the right to life as an objectively discernable aspect of human existence.

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?

We are not talking about the supposed right to a gay relationship. We are talking about the objectivity of the right to life. You, here, are attempting to compare apples with oranges. Your intial premise was that such rights were an ‘invention’. According to what you have agreed with thus far, you must now agree that there are indeed Natural Law rights which are not merely “invented”. To discern what those Natural Law rights are, we do indeed ‘pretend there is no government’ and we ascertain what is normative about human nature and behaviour. The natural inclination to live a life and to protect that life is an objectively discernable normative aspect of human nature. Take it away, that is, alienate it, and you are dealing with an incomplete and non-normative human nature. Hence the ‘right to life’ as a Natural Law moral right.

 

[John21652]

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.

It’s no good having a “your definition” or “my definition” of what “objective” means. We need to qualify our terms or we can’t have a meaningful discussion.

For something to be considered as “objective” it must be something that can be discerned as mind independent and universal. In other words, whatever it is that is called objective must be able to be recognised by many minds, or even by all minds and it must be something that is discernable everywhere, in different places and at different times. That means that whatever is to be considered as objective must be discernable by everyone, anytime and everywhere. That is what I meant when I used the terms universal and mind independent. They are commonly accepted requisites for objectivity. That is how science arrives at objective truths. Gravity is one such ‘truth’ that is objective. As you stated, there are no subjective feelings, bias, or predjudices involved in discerning something as being objective.

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.

I never made the statement that it is objectively wrong to chop off your head. What you are getting at is the possibility that it is objectively wrong to kill. It is objectively wrong to kill without due cause, which usually refers to protecting your own life and/or the lives of others. It is not objectively wrong to kill per se. If that were the case, then it would be wrong to defend your own life and to take another’s life if that is what is required. Natural Law allows you to defend your own life and to even kill in self defense. It is this propensity to protect our own lives when threatened which allows us to discern that most people value their own lives.

We are not talking about the wrongness or otherwise of killing. We are talking about the right to life as an objectively discernable aspect of human existence.

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?

We also are not talking about the supposed right to a gay relationship. We are talking about the objectivity of the right to life. You, here, are attempting to compare apples with oranges by introducing a new concept. Your intial premise was that Natural Law rights were an ‘invention’. According to what you have agreed with thus far, you must now agree that there are indeed Natural Law rights which are not merely “invented”. To discern what those Natural Law rights are, we do indeed ‘pretend there is no government’ and we ascertain what is normative about human nature and behaviour. The natural inclination to live a life and to protect that life is an objectively discernable normative aspect of human nature. Take it away, that is, alienate it, and you are dealing with an incomplete and non-normative human nature. Hence the ‘right to life’ as a Natural Law moral right.

 

[hazmat]

you say: “Take it away, that is, alienate it, and you are dealing with an incomplete and non-normative human nature.” do you have any examples where natural rights have been taken away or alienated in recent history?

i think we are using the same definition for objective. right to life isnt discernible by everyone though–i dont see it, and im sure murderers dont either. maybe the word to focus on is “right” and not “objective,” since it seems you consider any fulfillment of natural inclinations a right.

 

[John21652]

you say: “Take it away, that is, alienate it, and you are dealing with an incomplete and non-normative human nature.” do you have any examples where natural rights have been taken away or alienated in recent history?

Surely you don’t need me to give examples of where natural rights have been alienated? Doesn’t the behaviour of Hitler and Stalin come to mind? Aren’t murders committed every day?

i think we are using the same definition for objective. right to life isnt discernible by everyone though–i dont see it, and im sure murderers dont either.

So, on that statement, are you a potential murderer? What prevents you from murdering someone? And if murderers don’t see the right to life of others, why do they run and hide and feel guilty? And why aren’t they speaking out against the prohibition against random killing of other people? As for you not seeing it, if I came to your door with an axe and made to strike you, would you defend yourself?

maybe the word to focus on is “right” and not “objective,”

Not at all. If something, a human behaviour, is not an objectively discernable norm of human behaviour, then no Natural Law right can be derived from it.

since it seems you consider any fulfillment of natural inclinations a right.

Nonsense. You just made that up. If anyone thinks the fulfillment of any natural inclinations is a ‘right’ then they have abandoned the objectivity of Natural Law reasoning and descended into moral relativism.

 

[hazmat]

Surely you don’t need me to give examples of where natural rights have been alienated? Doesn’t the behaviour of Hitler and Stalin come to mind? Aren’t murders committed every day?

yes, those are examples i would cite. but you argue rights are unalienable, so i didnt expect you to have any examples, as their being alienated contradicts the claim that theyre unalienable. this is what im talking about.

 

[John21652]

yes, those are examples i would cite. but you argue rights are unalienable, so i didnt expect you to have any examples, as their being alienated contradicts the claim that theyre unalienable. this is what im talking about.

I explained what is meant by inalienable in post #54, fourth paragraph.

Your response in post #59 indicated that you understood what was meant by ‘inalienable’ as it pertains to human nature.

Either you are not reading carefully, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Which is it?

 

[Nate13]

yes, those are examples i would cite. but you argue rights are unalienable, so i didnt expect you to have any examples, as their being alienated contradicts the claim that theyre unalienable. this is what im talking about.

Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
you say: “Take it away, that is, alienate it, and you are dealing with an incomplete and non-normative human nature.” do you have any examples where natural rights have been taken away or alienated in recent history?

Surely you don’t need me to give examples of where natural rights have been alienated? Doesn’t the behaviour of Hitler and Stalin come to mind? Aren’t murders committed every day?

I think you think he said something that he didn’t say. The behavior of Hitler towards Jews for example did not take away their inalienable right to life. Try as Hitler did he could not make those Jews not human. I mean look what those people went through and how hard their bodies and minds worked to stay alive? If anything that is further evidence for our position.

John thought you were asking for examples were someone has ignored someone else inalienable rights. That is why he gave the examples he did. John gave examples of where subjectively rights have been alienated with respect to how their government views them. Objectively though those people never lost their inherent right to life. By your thinking they should have all just flopped over dead, because they were under Hitler’s government and did not deserve to live in his opinion.

They opposed Hitler though in his view based on the inalienable right to life they had. If they did not have inalienable rights to life and liberty they would have had no basis on which to object to what Hitler did.

 

[hazmat]

john: it was a trick question, when i asked you for examples of inalienable rights being alienated–by definition (perhaps not yours), what is inalienable cannot be alienated. i did see that you tried to define inalienable in your own way–which i dont agree with–but didnt rebut you on that because i felt it would just be distracting to do so.

nate: i trust john to speak for himself. but youre welcome to continue our exchange.