This is a question that has caused me significant difficulty over the years. As far as I can tell, "rights" to anything are only granted by virtue of a social contract, and do not exist in a fundamental way. However, this conclusion is antithetical to my personal ethics - thus the dilemna. I suppose also that, by extension, one needs to consider the meaning of the word "right" in this context. Thoughtful input would be greatly appreciated.
2007-02-15 08:28:47 · 12 answers · asked by Matt S 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You are your own master in all things unless you perpetrate harm or commit aggression against another. Yes, you have an inalienable right to life, but your rights stop where mine begin. If you attempt to violate my life, I am justified in ending yours to protect myself, and vise versa. That requires no social or legal contract; that's just how it is.
2007-02-15 08:39:27 · answer #1 · answered by Zombie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you that rights are granted per a social contract. These rights can be altered or given up by way of exiting society all together. Point being that you have a choice on whether you "sign the social contract". But your right to life was not your choice. Human nature dictates that we are brought to life by others' choices/actions/rights. Therefore, due to the forceable nature by which we even have life-we most definitely have an inalienable right to life. There is no going back, no choosing on our part to NOT have life. Inalienable, yes.
2007-02-15 08:44:49 · answer #2 · answered by mstrayg 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my experience the Universe does not grant or recognize any "Rights." You are correct in that it is us as a society who grant these "rights." Even then the rights are situational, as an example, if the only way you could save your little sister or daughter from an attacker was to kill, would you even hesitate?
Yet at the same time it is how we define right and wrong that in turn defines us as a people. There are no perfect solutions, but over time things get better. We no longer kill and eat our enemies. Kill them yes, but not eat, so I guess that is progress.
2007-02-15 08:44:46 · answer #3 · answered by Bruce H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Social contract or not, even animals will do all in their power to defend and protect their life. Other rights may be negotiable within the context of social relations, the right to life is inalienable and not-negotiable--a basic minimum, starting point to any social contract.
2007-02-15 08:40:21 · answer #4 · answered by Elder 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wait a minute: If I say "no, there is no longer one in all those element as absolute certainty", are not I making an absolute fact approximately certainty?? curiously sufficient, this question (posed as such) can not be replied with a "no" via fact then whoever is asserting "no" is making an absolute declare that there isn't any absolute certainty. Heh? So... the arguments flow around in circles and then i flow flow-eyed.... so i do no longer fairly hardship debating this anymore. Cheers :)
2016-12-17 10:49:23 · answer #5 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Inalienable rights is very idealistic. Unfortunately life doesn't always match what we think should be or could be.
There is nothing wrong with trying to reach for that which is honorable. And as humans we can expect that life isn't always what we think it should be.
And you re right that the meaning of the word "rights" could be different to different people. That is the problem with communication is the variety of interpretation.
2007-02-15 08:42:02 · answer #6 · answered by clcalifornia 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are indeed understood rights belonging to all human beings. Governments violate these rights. Life is a right that can only be violated by natural things, or else it is wrong.
2007-02-15 16:25:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure everything has the right to live, but it also is a part of an ecosystem. So we live that in our death something else continues on. Even if it's just worms.
2007-02-15 10:33:18 · answer #8 · answered by Solace 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law says so but I believe everything we have is granted to us by the grace of providence, the grace of our government, the grace of our parents or carers.
I personally think it is a waste of time to insist on my rights, instead I am grateful with the ideal of justice both manmade and providential.
2007-02-15 12:15:05 · answer #9 · answered by Freddy F 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think I understand where you are coming from. Rights are determined by the governing rule. There really are no "rights" that we are born with internally except for the right to live and the right to die.
2007-02-15 08:36:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋