Is the right to LIFE an inherent right?

lol, so that's a no, you have no argument for objective morality.

 

Define Humanity.

On the contrary, it's possible for everyone to be so genetically hardwired that all of your actions are predestined before stimulus presents itself for you to act on it.

 

You don't need an argument when you can see the reality of it.

Request denied. However, in the present context it is proper to note that an essential component of humanity is self-awareness.

That is a purely theoretical possibility which militates against self-awareness, by which one may perceive that one is acting under a compulsion, which is a precursor to overcoming said compulsion.

 

You will have to accept also that your free will is also a theoretical possibility with even less research to back it up.

WE KNOW that genes provide at least a guide work for our developments and make us prone to taking certain actions over others, or not acting in some cases. At the moment science has not proven that they control our actions. You are correct in calling determinism a theory, but the tone in your message might mislead others into believing that it is a weak one.

You will have to debunk determinism before you can actually answer the question of self conciousness and then on to rights or not of inherent life.

 

Granted this is an opinion poll, I think for any government to enact or not a "Right to life" they will have to answer the question of free will. If determinism is accepted then likely the answer for the right to life to be a hard no, and the opposite to be true for libertarianism. And rule on cases (abortion and execution seem to be a couple hot topics being thrown around here) Deterministically or Libertarian, simply because science will not likely find the answer anytime soon.

There have been some breakthroughs, in recent years, with genetic determinist research, however if this is the case it might very well despair a lot of people. I could see courts taking more lenient punishments on criminal actions if they rule in favor of determinism, and the opposite for libertarianism. And both sides against abortion.

 

If each individual becomes aware of what they think is right, subjectively, but also realizes the limitations of their mind and acts accordingly as best they know how it becomes possible to create stable political systems for rationally resolving conflicts of interest with the consent of the People without resorting to political violence. Otherwise, if you claim to have knowledge of what is objectively right, I imagine you would also be under a moral obligation to endeavor to establish a constitution which does not allow for any changes in the form of our government - one under which elections are for selecting new administrators of old policies rather than electing actual leaders who may be free thinkers and act upon opinions that do not neccessarily toe the line of a conservative sort of political correctness.

Perhaps there is a more plainspoken way to explain this to you but I'd prefer not to spend a lot of time trying to do so unless you are genuinely interested in my answer.

If you do not intend on being respectful and participating in a constructive conservation I would kindly ask that you please refrain from responding to my posts. As things currently stand, you are wasting both my time and your own. :\

 

Thanks for confirmation that you have no argument.

 

Never said anything about that.

There is nothing theoretical about self-awareness to those of us who have it, and we don't need any external confirmation.

Actually, as applied to human beings, calling it a theory is praise by faint damnation, as it has no other purpose than to undermine the principle of personal responsibility, without which we cannot be anything but slaves - not of our genetic makeup, but of those who come up with acceptable excuses and compensations for our failings.

What question would that be?

 

True

They do.

 

Well those certainly are warm and fuzzy, as weasel words go.

Why should anyone care?

And if 90% of the people abhor violence and 10% are sanguine about it, guess who wins?

Quite the imagination you have there.

No doubt you number yourself among them - which is rather amusing, considering no one can think freely who believes in lies.

Not likely, seeing you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

As redolent with contempt for humanity as your posts are, you can hardly expect to get back more than you give.

The only way to have anything resembling a constructive conversation about such destructive ideas as you contend for is to call a spade a spade, which is what I'm doing.

I'll respond to anything I deem it proper to respond to.

I am perfectly capable of making that assessment unassisted, so thanks for nothing.

 

No. You've confused the "right to" a thing with the thing itself.

For instance, let's say that a court orders another person to pay you $1 that they stole from you. It could be said that you have a "right" to that dollar. That right exists whether the other person pays up or not. Using your definition, your right to that dollar only exists after it has been paid, which is a position that not many logical people would maintain. Furthermore, your "right to" that dollar began the moment you attained it and did not end once it was stolen.

In that same vein, a person can be murdered and have their right to life infringed upon, but that doesn't mean that they never had the right to begin with. If they didn't have the right then it wouldn't be called murder.

 

Nope. Not as you have defined the term "inherent right" as "a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute."

My speech, religion, freedom, property can all be taken away. None are permanent and inseparable.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're dead, how can you say that life is a "a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute" that you have a "right" to?

 

If you define an "inherent" right as meaning "a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute" as the OP author does, then how can you say you have an "inherent" right to life when you can lose it tomorrow?

- - - Updated - - -

"Death is not the outright nullification or cancellation of life, though"

It isn't? I think that is pretty much exactly what death is.

 

Which of course illustrates the obvious point of the OP. If there is an "inherent" right or "a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute" to life, then persumably that "right" would supersede other "rights".

 

You get the same nonsense. Terms like "inherent" or "inalienable" or "God given" or whatever are simply labels people put on "rights" they want to emphasize are especially important or that should not be ignored or taken away. Which is exactly what the OP is trying to do for an abortion argument.

 

I wouldn't go so far as saying rights do not exists. We can have certain "rights" set forth in laws or social mores, and it is certain valid to talk about what rights we should or should not have.

But to say that there is some "inherent right" to something is not accurate. It's not even accurate as a legal concept. If there was an inherent legal right to life, there could be no wars and no capital punishment. Arguably, it would also mandate full societal resources to keep every person alive by all possible means.

 

Of course.

Of course.

Your question is a non sequitur. It doesn't have to be an inherent right to come from somewhere or not.

Actual rights come from laws, custom, social norms. Prospective or potential rights come form ideas and concepts of what should be.

 

I think only one person expressed that position.

You are confusing a "right" with an "inherent right" and thus making a false conclusion. The fact that there is no "inherent" right, as that was defined by the author of the OP, does not mean that there can be no rights at all. We can certain have a situation were a woman has a right to her body. Or not. Depends on the society and its laws. But that is a different thing from saying there is some kind of "inherent" right.

 

So, in the absence of laws you wouldn't think that your neighbor had any rights whatsoever? No right to live? No right to own the product of his labor?

 

Huh? People take things they don't possess all the time.

 

If I have to read many more inane posts like this one its sounds more and more like a viable alternative.

 

I would agree with this.

 

trouble is - Where do we draw the line? Does every conception have a "right" to implantation? Does every implanted conception have a "right" to life regardless of how malformed? If a mother starts spontaneously aborting - where is the "right to life" then??

In truth the "Right to life" is a logical fallacy - none of us have an inherent "right to life". What we have is the hand fate deals us and that is a possibility of living IF and only IF you do not succumb to death from a million different reasons including, in many parts of the world starvation, abuse, war, disease etc etc etc

 

No, that's just what you guys want to dumb it down to, so as to remain blissfully oblivious to the fact that the absence of such rights would mean freedom can never be anything but a delusion, because humans could no more live outside a tyrannical system of governance than a fish can live out of water.

 

I think inherent is an inappropriate adjective. The appropriate one is unalienable. For instance, breathing is an inherent characteristic of being alive. Unalienable is an inherent characteristic of certain rights.

Unalienable right means they incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. Inalienable rights are rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Both are inherent traits of rights.

Right to life is unalienable.