Do people have an inherent right to live?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Do people have an inherent right to live?

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

And if so, why? What policies and costs are justified to keep people alive (housed, fed, free from pollution)?

If not, what laws are justified? Do we , as another poster put it: "live in a barbaric anarchy where the strong do what they will and the weak do what they must"?

I've been grappling with this for years trying to justify why we take from some to provide for others, and aside from religious arguments I can't find a good reason why people have an inviolable right to live. What's it to you that someone else gets hurt?

# ¿ Feb 24, 2015 19:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 02:13

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

mrParkbench posted:

Hmmm these are some very heavy questions

e: Do people have any inherent rights? What is an inherent right? If people have other inherent rights but not the right to live, can we just kill them thus nullifying their other rights?

e2: or is this coming from one of those "property is the only inherent right" things...

No, and I don't know why the hell some people fixate on property rights above all else, it's kinda dumb to be honest.

If property rights do matter, they matter less than the lives of property holders. Property is a servant, not a master. If it's not inherently wrong to kill someone, why would it be wrong to rob them?

# ¿ Feb 24, 2015 20:33

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

Muscle Tracer posted:

Although the phrasing of the OP is pretty repugnant, I have often found this question interesting as it pertains directly to a number of debates�welfare, healthcare, abortion, assisted suicide, war, the death penalty, the 2nd amendment, police brutality, etc. A lot of people feel like they hold a "human life is more valuable than anything else" mentality, but that almost always immediately breaks down once nuanced situations and edge cases start to be introduced. Pretty much nobody thinks that both abortion and war should be outlawed, for instance. But both ostensibly deal with the basic immorality of killing, right?

But it feels really awkward to start trying to "justify" when life is and is not valuable, and so you get responses like those above instead.

Personally, I think every human has a duty to make things as good as possible for other people, so "not killing them" almost always falls easily under that subheading. (That duty, in short, stems from the fact that this is the only way for a society to truly advance: an objectivist society, with the opposite viewpoint, would almost immediately revert to the stone age, as people hosed each other over for short term gains). The only circumstances in which a human life is forfeit is 1. if they are threatening the life or livelihood of another, then lethal force can be excused, or 2. if they are terminally ill and would rather die painlessly now than after slow months or years of agony.

But I wouldn't extend this right to fetuses. Feti are fungible.

Thanks for stating my question/argument better than me. I'll update the OP to try to be less awful when I have more time later on.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2015 22:45

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

This question probably requires better phrasing, perhaps something like "Why should people care if other people get hurt?"

Imagine for a second that somebody just bought a self-driving car, and they're cruising on the highway keeping an eye on the road but generally letting the autodriver do its thing. Suddenly, a construction worker trips over a rock and stumbles in the car's way, getting hit.

Other than the damage to the car, is the driver obligated to take the positive action of swerving out of the way to dodge the construction worker? Is the driver right in saying "Sucks to be you! I'm not obligated to take action to save your life, if you want to live stay out of the road!" or something like that?

Also, since any right to life is a social construction, what if society decides you're some sort of nonperson, as in the case of genocide victims or certain types of criminals? What are they ethically permitted to do about their situation?

Thanks again for taking the question seriously, especially given it's lovely origins and phrasing.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2015 22:45

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I'm aware of the history. I, too, have taken college philosophy courses! Just because something has "been a thing in philosophy for a long time" doesn't mean it isn't also fundamentally a semantic quibble :P The criticism I'm raising isn't some brand new thing -- it's been one of the major counterarguments against positive & negative rights theory for a very long time.

Even imposing a "negative" obligation to "not murder" will in practical terms require people to take positive overt action to avoid murdering in some instances (for example, switching a trolley car onto a different track). It's fundamentally not possible to make that kind of distinction and have it remain valid in the real world. Ultimately, there's no positive right that can't be rephrased as a negative right (right to not be prevented from X) and vice versa. It's an ivory-tower distinction without practical validity.

The reason -- I believe, at least -- that positive/negative rights theory is so popular is not that it's valid; it's that it allows the the convenient rationalization and trivialization of what are actually very difficult moral dilemmas. It's easy for an ivory-tower philosopher -- or a wealthy man -- to say "you may have a right to life, but it's only negative, and I have a right to be free from theft, so you can't steal bread from me to eat, even though you're starving." This is a very convenient view for libertarians, wealthy people, and other folks who want to have clean consciences while also actively ignoring the plight of the less fortunate.

In practical terms though as a society we have to actually address the problem of the poor and starving with something more than negative rights theory. This is why Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is initially imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child.

I was going to type a reply, but this stated my thoughts better than I would.

If you're going to have any meaningful interaction between people and there are Negative Rights between them (the right to live, in this case), then it must be paired with Positive Rights obligating action to protect the aforementioned Negative Rights. If you're out in the wilderness you can fire off a machine gun all you like, but in the city you best keep it in the gun safe.

In my car example it's understood you gotta swerve if you can. Wateroverfire, if you're going to assert that only Negative Rights matter then carve out exemptions for Positive Rights in drat near every circumstance save rich/poor interactions, I fail to see how thinking of rights in terms of Negative and Positive has any meaning.

Changing gears, how do you go about convincing someone without compassion of a compassionate solution to a problem? If crime in a nearby city you never visit can be reduced substantially by a $10 million investment in infastructure/law enforcement training/whatever, and this investment is proven to work, how do you convince someone who just says "gently caress those city people! If they can't solve their problems without State help they deserve to die!"?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 14:46

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

One thing I realized just today, that most everyone's arguments about a social "right to life" stem from wanting other people to help you if you were in trouble. What if you don't want anyone to help you? If you would rather bleed out from a cut rather than obligate someone else to help you not die (like so many Republicans), where does a right to life come from then?

If someone else feels like being an rear end in a top hat and shoots you and you have no ability to fire back in any way, suck to be you! Nobody's obligated to keep you alive if you can't keep yourself alive.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2015 22:55

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

You ask a lot of weird questions. Are you thinking of killing someone?

No, it's just people seem to think we don't live in a dog-eat-dog jungle when in fact we do. If the government/social contract decides you don't deserve to live, then you will die. How many genocides are going on right this instant and nobody gives a poo poo?

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

Would any sane person rather die hungry than steal to eat? Would you?
It's not about logical consistency because humans aren't robots that you just feed a moral program.
If a large percentage of the population struggles to survive, you invite instability, and no amount of tantrumming will forestall it.

The great Count did indeed make a great effort to persuade the peasants of the irrationality of their behavior, and made quite a solid argument, before he was quite rudely interrupted by a bayonet!

Yes, but I'm proud to the point where the only reason I'd ask for help is because not doing so would hurt other people.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2015 00:14

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

Society functions because we don't let everyone just be thrown to the wolves. If you want to make an argument that it would be better if the weak were cleansed through violence, by all means do so.
Actually, we don't live in a dog-eat-dog world because people don't eat their kids, or regularly steal from their neighbors.

I'm not saying those genocides are good by any stretch, I'm saying that's how the world works. Also, I take it you haven't grown up in a small poor town. People don't eat their kids, they make them work in legal and illegal ways and boy do people rob their neighbors left and right, but generally as revenge for some real or imagined slight. If you leave your door open, don't count on any of your stuff being there when you get back.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2015 00:34

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

Mayor Dave posted:

Unironically asking the question "Do people have an inherent right to live?" automatically strips that right away from the asker

I argue nobody ever had it in the first place. The reason you (hopefully) weren't murdered today is only because either everyone you met had compassion and didn't feel like killing you, or were afraid of society punishing them. I'd like to do away with illusions to the contrary. Might alone makes right.

I'd rather we stop assuming that everyone values human life, and make arguments and plans without that assumption in place. If you personally value life, argue and act like nobody else does.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2015 01:32

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

AHungryRobot posted:

This is sounding like some naturalistic bullshit. Even if it were true that the current state of the world is some bleak, constant struggle for survival, that doesn't mean that's how the world should actually be like.

Except the world is a bleak, constant struggle for survival, at least for most people. How does ignoring that make anything any better?

# ¿ Mar 8, 2015 02:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 02:13

TwoQuestions: Aug 26, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

Because how the world is has no bearing on your behaviour, you behave as you wish the world to be, not as it is. That the world leaves much to be desired does not give you leave to be likewise.

I try to be a decent human being because I'd feel like poo poo if I was a complete callous rear end in a top hat. Trouble is, most of my morals are internal, believed almost like articles of faith.

I guess I just gotta learn how to argue with sociopathic assholes who don't see that hurting other people indirectly hurts themselves. Y'all would be surprised how many people think like the Goddamned Freepers.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2015 02:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Do people have an inherent right to live?