Is the right to LIFE an inherent right?

I murdered an apple last night.

 

You don't see that they have as much a right to live as we do? Can we not use common sense when it comes to the predator/prey relationship? Some animals were born omnivores, some carnivores and some herbivores. Just as nature has provided us all with the instinct to live, we also have the inherent need for sustenance, and that sustenance is different for every living thing - meet, vegies, fruits, nuts, and a mixture of the lot. We're omnivores... we gain nutrients from everything we eat and that enables us to live, just as the rabbit gains nutrients from vegies, the lion gains nutrients from meat, birds from fruit, and chipmunk from nuts.

 

Nature has instilled in them the inherent right to life. The right doesn't need to be understood in order to possess it. Your analogy is correct, which is why we have the justice system in place. Since a murderer has deprived life from another, he must be judged and punished.

 

Pretty sure I can be forgiven for not seeing what isn't there.

That would depend on you, since I am already doing so.

So what the hell does any of this have to do with the right to life?

Sure, that's why the kill each other on a daily basis and don't lose any sleep over it.

Yes it does, because absent understanding there is no "just claim" to it, since understanding and justice are inseparable.

Of course it is. Unfortunately, it seems not to have inspired you to reflect on your own illogic.

 

"Isn't there," according to you. Are animals not natural? Has nature not instilled in them the instinct to survive and live? It's common sense to me.

Are you? Humans are at the top of the food chain. We eat to survive and kill only when necessary. We have an understanding of what it takes to survive... and it's arguably naturally "just" to kill in order to gain sustenance to survive.

It has to do with our inherent nature to survive. We kill lesser beings (prey) in order to survive. Animals do the same thing.

That's the natural order of things. Animals have the same instinct of survival that we do. They even know how to prepare their nests/dens/etc. for defense against the typical predator.

Are you God? Have you determined what is just and what is not, in regards to the creatures of the Earth? This sounds like something an environmentalist would say, but they can't speak, so we must speak for them. They can't define "justice" like we can, but justice exists, nonetheless. We must argue that they have a "just claim" to life, which is what I'm trying to do (perhaps not very well).

Is there a reason you decided only to quote a portion of my statement? What is murder? "The crime of deliberately killing a person." It clarifies "person," because it refers to an interspecific event. Different species do not kill each other for the purpose of attaining sustenance. Humans do not eat other humans, unless for perverted ritualistic reasons and/or they're mentally ill. Otherwise, there's no natural reasoning for killing within the species.

This is all getting very whimsical and liberal for me... I'm suddenly feeling the urge to go liberate some lab rats.

 

So it has nothing to do with the right to life. Thanks for clearing that up.

Are you hoping to irritate me, or just indulging a penchant for interminable repetition for its own sake?

I don't have to be God to understand certain elementary principles that relate to the human condition.

Not in the animal realm it doesn't, which is the whole point.

You wouldn't be able to argue that unrepentant murderers have a just claim to life very well either, and for the same reason: it's bloody nonsense.

I was merely emphasizing the fact that you evinced no understanding of what I said.

 

There is no inherent right to life. Its an invention.

 

You're prone to ignoring complete arguments and selectively listening. You're suggesting that we don't have a right to life, but accepting that we have a right to survive. Same thing...

Seems it takes repeating to get you to see/hear anything, so why not?

It's elementary to me, that we have a right to life. You? Not so much. Can I look somewhere, where this might be clearly decided/defined for us? If not, then the issue is still up for debate.

Right, not in the animal realm... so like I mentioned before, we must speak on behalf of those who can't speak. We live on the Earth... we could say that since we're the only ones capable of doing it, that we're Earth's caretakers. Do you disagree?

Are animals not innocent? They kill to survive. We kill to survive. Unrepentant murderers do not.

Except that I did, but you didn't like my answer.

 

We are imbued with no a prior "inherent right to life" because we die regardless of our asserting such a conceit.

Insisting that you have "an inherent right to life" to a python that is consuming you or a tsunami that is engulfing you is clearly futile.

We do have an inherent right not to be killed casually by other humans, of course - a distinctly different matter.

 

A perfectly reasonable posture for anyone who finds himself bombarded by irrelevancies, as I do at the moment.

You have me confused with someone else.

I suppose it depends on your objective. If you are hoping I'll terminate the conversation, keep it up.

Sure, just like rocks are innocent.

Sure they do. Murder is a time-honored tool of despots who desire to survive as despots.

Trust me, you didn't. At all.

 

You believe we have an inherent right to life? Why is that?

Could you elaborate on this?

- - - Updated - - -

Why is that? By casually, what exactly do you mean?

 

My reasoning is thus: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=317222&page=50&p=1063137305#post1063137305

I argued that animals, like humans, have the right to life; that they were given this right by nature (or God - however you want to explain it). Nature has instilled in the creatures of this world, the inherent attribute of instinct and yearning for survival. This, to me, suggests an inherent right to life. All creatures, including humans, acknowledge instinctively their will to survive and demonstrate it through fight/flight techniques. Were these attributes not characteristic of these creatures, you could argue that since there is no instinctual yearning for survival, they have no right to life. Nature, however, saw fit to see these instincts realized.

I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers... but this and my previous posts have been my argument in support of a right to life by God/Nature.

You can agree or disagree, but I don't understand the belittlement others choose to respond with. There's no point to it, other than to inflame a bickering match.

 

I think we share a very similar conclusion but from a different origin, and i find mine personally holds a more compelling position due to its simple justification and reasoning. I dont think there are 'inherent rights' however. I think the whole 'nature/god' thing is just an invention. But i would argue that we arrive at socially constructed entitlements that amount to something similar to a right, more like a recognition, for beings with an interest in being alive.
I would argue that any being with a desire to be alive ought, in placing value in its own desire, recognize the desires of other creatures that wish to be alive because they are of equal value for the simple reason they are all desires to be alive. The ramifications of this do not entail a realization of an inherent right but rather a need for mutual recognition of equal (ie all) cognitive desires to be alive.

I agree with you about the dismissive folk. Such responses are often a defence mechanism however - they can't actually say why you are wrong and thereby defend their own position so they resort to petty ad hominem and the like

 

So, if someone were suicidal, as in they didn't have a desire to be alive, and killed 100 people and then committed suicide, then you wouldn't be able to, using your justification, say that this person did anything wrong. Have I got that right?

If you don't start with the principle of self-ownership then I honestly don't know how any of you come to the conclusions that you do.

 

No. If they didn't want to be alive they would have killed themself, however they clearly did want to be alive to some extent, since a dead man cannot kill people. So he wanted to be alive AND THEN kill people. Does that make sense? Also his desire to end his life runs contrary to ending others since it deprives them of the same freedom.

Lol ok so how do you begin with the principle of self-ownership, or in other words, why start there

 

I mean that circumstances and motivation may change the equaton. If, e.g., you pose an immediate threat to the lives of innocent people, others would have a legitimate right to take yours to prevent it.

 

Fair enough

 

Nope, not this hypothetical guy. He has never desired to be alive. One day, while driving his bus, he realizes that he can simply kill himself so he drives his bus carrying 100 people off of a cliff.

What do you mean "Lol ok so how do you begin with the principle of self-ownership"? There is self. That is the unique entity that is you. Then there is ownership. The state of owning something. I don't own the unique entity that is you. You are in possession of yourself, always have been and always will. You own you. Do you not agree with that? Do you think that someone else owns you?

Once that basic truth is established then the right to life, or the right to not be murdered for our more pedantic forum members, logically follows.

 

We always return to this simple fact that was previously addressed.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=317222&p=1063071505#post1063071505

The "Right To Life" exists for the "Person" and the "Pre-born" are not "Persons" based upon Constitutional legal precedent. That legal precedent can be changed but only by a Constitutional Amendment in the United States.

If we want to expand the protections of the Right to Life to "preborn" human beings then it requires a Constitutional Amendment. There is no other way to accomplish this. It is no different than if we wanted to protect the Right to Life of a donkey or elephant. They don't have a "Right to Life" today under the US Constitution but a Constitutional Amendment establishes Constitutional Legal Precedent in the United States.

 

No what I mean is you literally have to be alive in order to kill. So I preference of desires being alive comes first because it is necessary. Unless your guy is undead or something

Lol 'the state of owning something?' Ownership is a legal concept - it's not immediate.

You would if I sold it under the legal system that allowed for such ownership. Your argument is relative to legal norms.

See above. The law determines what ownership is. Thus your morals are relative to law.

That's not a truth it's a laughable fallacy.

 

What if one argues the constitution is based on a fallacy/invalid argument?

 

And what I mean is that this guy didn't necessarily want to kill the other 100 people. He just wanted to kill himself at that very instant and it just happened that the other 100 people had to die with him for him to immediately accomplish his goal.

No. Nobody else can own you. They cannot possess your thoughts and your mind. It isn't possible. You always own you. You can be bound and shackled and you still own you. Your reliance on "legal norms" is just as much a fallacy as the above poster relying on the US Constitution for his argument. Your argument is basically that whatever the laws says is right or just, yet you haven't established why that is. You state that, "that any being with a desire to be alive ought, in placing value in its own desire, recognize the desires of other creatures that wish to be alive because they are of equal value for the simple reason they are all desires to be alive," yet you have no basis why anyone "ought" to recognize the desires of others or why they are of equal value. Just saying that they do or that they should isn't an argument. It is simply an assertion. Yours is such an empty argument. You assert that one human being can rightfully own another human being simply by someone writing a law. Where does the authority for this law come from? If, as you say, rights don't exist then how does the person writing the laws have any authority to do so? Why does he get to say who owns what when he can't even say that he owns himself?

 

In that case he has made an irrational and unethical choice to kill himself in that minute then.

Please define your use o the word ownership. do you mean possession? that seems more accurate. ownership is a legal term - it cant be otherwise like murder or theft

Lol now you are racing ahead and conflating what i said. i didnt say morality us based in the law i said YOUR morality, as you descrive it, is based on the law since ownership, as a concept, is relative to the law.

Well there are many reasons why they should do this. You yourself have given no reason why people "ought" to recognize the ownership you describe. A good reason is self preservation, another is the fact that entities will have interests and thus ethics need only determine how best to achieve them. There are plenty if others. This problem is yours as well.

Correct but i said that because i am discussing ethical principles not the justification for being ethical to begin with.

In so far as we assess the udea of ownership, yes

The power of the law, else the law does not exist. As I said, it's relative.

That's the question isn't it. Which laws are justifiable and why.

Well if you are asking me to justify ownership or right to life based on my ethical position which is then inscribed in the law the answer is simple - because all rings that are alive all wish to be alive hence their state if existence and should recognize their equality in that interest because it is the only rational means to answer the question how are we to best pursue our interests, which is the propelling force if our existence

 

Your argument is circular. I asked where the authority comes from for a law that allows one person to own another and you stated that it comes from "the power of the law". Take a step back and you'll see just how utterly fallacious your argument is. You then went on to state "That's the question isn't it. Which laws are justifiable and why," yet the only justification you can come up with for a law is that it is the law...You also cannot state why the bus driver's actions were unethical. Simply saying that it was unethical isn't enough. You need a reason. If you insist that it is unethical but can't use your original argument to say why it was unethical then perhaps you should reevaluate that argument.

 

Follow me slowly. I am not trying to justify ownership of one person by another. I merely said that one could have ownership of other people just as you can have ownership purely of yourself in terms of the law, but that does make either valid in and of themselves, that is, external to the law. My point was that both ideas, that you can own someone else and the idea that you own only yourself are RELATIVE to the law, which itself is socially contrived. Does that make sense? I was showing how your argument is circular because the concept of ownership is relative to existing institutions of the law.

But that is not my argument! It was an analogy - an analogous instance of another law-bound concept that is circular just like your concept of 'self-ownership'.
Here is the axiom of my contention regarding YOUR argument:

1. Self-ownership is a form of ownership
2. Ownership is relative to the law
Given 1 and 2., therefore:
3. Self-ownership is relative to the law.

Make sense?
That is why I said, it wouldnt matter if it were self-ownership or legal enslavement of someone else; they are still relative to the law.

Because that laws are not the propositions I am trying to justify! It was an analogy to point out the falsity of your argument.

I did give you a reason. Allow me to elaborate on my explanation because it must not have been clear enough:

When one seeks to kill oneself, it is not that they do not value their life, it is that they value death moreso. However given that you need to be alive in order to carry out the act, one still places value on that state of that temporary existence - life to that person becomes a means to an end, the end being to die. This does not mean the suicidal individual can subject the other interests of others who wish to be alive to that individual's secondary desire to end their life - because the secondary desire is relative to him, whereas the desire to be alive is universal. Does this make sense? This is why it would be ethical for the bu driver to kill himself in the way you describe but not in such a way that they kill everyone around them in the process - it is the process that is at issue and since the process requires him to be alive so that he can act to kill himself it requires an implicit value of life to serve that end. I hope this is clear. I can elaborate further if it is not.