After that debate about the death penalty, it seemed clear that the concept of a "right to life" is something a lot of people form their morals around. It's a pretty significant idea to toss around in a debate, but I don't see many people try to explain what it even means. Let's see if we can figure it out.


If you believe in a right to life, here's some questions to start out -- Is the right to live an absolute right? Does everyone have this right? Can someone ever lose it, or give it up voluntarily? Where does the right come from, and who is responsible for upholding it? Is it a legal right or a natural right? Both? Neither?

My view on rights is very liberal. I believe that we are born with unlimited rights, as there is no such thing as a "right". We then have some of these taken away from us in return for privileges based on contracts (contract theory) that benefit both us and the state with consent. However, I feel that the right to life is the most fundamental of all of our rights, as it enables all other "rights" to exist. It should NEVER be taken away unless it is the ONLY option in a utilitarian sense. Dealing with life is a messy business, especially with the likes of wars where one side is not clearly in the right, however in all of these scenarios it is only taken to provide some sort of "greater good", and also bear in mind that the people you are killing have agreed to forefit their life for THEIR own cause. But I mean we could debate wars for days, and that's only one small part of it.

Yes, the right to live is an absolute right, but you are in control of whether or not you want your OWN rights to be taken away. Everyone has this right. Someone can give it up voluntarily or lose it if it benefits a greater good, although to be completely honest I'm unsure as to whether I agree with the "greater good" being a valid reason for taking away someone's absolute right (which is kind of a contradiction). We can give it away voluntarily. The right comes from nobody, it is a natural right. We have ultimate rights which are then removed in order to grant us privileges. Nobody is definitively responsible for upholding it, but one of the contracts lain out by the state is to protect our rights, and as such it should be somewhat the state's responsibility to protect it. It's a natural right and a legal right because the legal right to life is given when we form agreements with the governing body on them NOT taking away that right.

I was preparing basically an essay on this when my computer gave me the blue screen of death.

Long story short, "rights" are what the law gives us, and the law is supposed to be based on what will be best for the people. A condemned prisoner in the death chamber does not have a right to life, but maybe he should. That's a question for the death penalty debate.

In terms of whether or not you should be able to give up your right to life, I'd say yes if you have a chronic illness. In that case only you can decide if your life is worth living. But if you're just a slightly depressed teenager you should not have the right to end your life; you are giving up not just your life but the life of your future self, which could (and probably would) have been much better.

Quote from Automaton

It should NEVER be taken away unless it is the ONLY option in a utilitarian sense.

You seem pretty confident about this idea, but you're saying a lot of things that contradict it. Mostly the part about being unsure of the "greater good" being a justifiable reason to take away the right to life. I don't see any doubt in the above quote, so I'm not sure how strongly you feel about this.

Apparently there are some situations where you think the right can be taken away, but you also say:

Quote from Automaton

Yes, the right to live is an absolute right

..which means everyone has it, it cannot be lost, and any infringement upon it is inherently wrong regardless of the circumstances. That's how I understand the term at least.

Either it's absolute, and life should never be ended prematurely, or it's conditional and the right to life is only relevant at certain times. I guess I'm more interested in the conditions you think should be considered.

That's why I wrote "to be completely honest I'm unsure as to whether I agree with the "greater good" being a valid reason for taking away someone's absolute right (which is kind of a contradiction)".
I hold the belief that life is the only ultimate right, there's nothing else that has a status above it, and so I obviously am not going to agree with things such as the death penalty. However, when it comes to other circumstances, my morals become more muddled. I believe life should only be taken to prevent more lives being lost, which is what I meant in the war scenario, and ONLY when death is a last resort. If there are other options to war then they should be exhausted, regardless of their practicalities. That's why I don't like any arguments about money, the cost of keeping people in prison, anything to do with the practicality of it; because to me, life is above and beyond ANY practicalities. The only thing that can justify death is to prevent death. Do you understand what I'm saying? I find it hard to convey sometimes.

If nothing supercedes the right to life, then why is it acceptable to kill a soldier in combat? Because he chose to risk his life? Is that choice a right that supercedes his right to life?

If someone agrees to engage in behavior knowing that the consequences may end his life, and that agreement is the condition you use to justify war casualties as an acceptable infringement against one's right to life, then why is the death penalty wrong?

the right of life can be lost when someone is condemned to death penalty...it can be give (heart donation for example)

its a natural right but the law is supporting it

( i didnt read all the previous posts so i don't know if someone has said this before me ! )

Quote from Exilement

If nothing supercedes the right to life, then why is it acceptable to kill a soldier in combat? Because he chose to risk his life? Is that choice a right that supercedes his right to life?

If someone agrees to engage in behavior knowing that the consequences may end his life, and that agreement is the condition you use to justify war casualties as an acceptable infringement against one's right to life, then why is the death penalty wrong?

I would agree with that reasoning, but I don't think the main reason that it's acceptable to kill a soldier in combat is because they choose to risk their lives. That may be a reason, but I wouldn't think it justifies itself on its own. The main reason I believe it is okay is because the war is supposed to prevent more deaths, it's got nothing to do with whether or not the person accepts their penalty for doing what they're doing. It's got everything to do with having the least amount of deaths as possible. And of course, that's why a lot of wars aren't justified, in my opinion, but I don't want to debate specifics on them because my knowledge on wars and the likes is little to none.

Quote from Automaton

It's got everything to do with having the least amount of deaths as possible.

I guess this is the point that I'm trying to understand, because I know you're pro-choice and I know you support euthanasia. Those positions don't seem compatible with what you're currently saying is the ultimate concern above all others when determining what is and isn't morally acceptable.


I also realize I'm pushing you into playing defense here, without really explaining my own views. Feel free to turn it on me if you get tired of explaining yours.

I don't mind, honestly. You're probably going to find inconsistencies in my views on it because I have never really thought about it past the point of prioritising life above all else, and also because I support individual, rational liberty.

These 2 beliefs become somewhat contradictory, because if I view life as the ultimate importance, as I've said, then that conflicts with individual choice on their own life (for instance, committing suicide I believe is okay under the right circumstances as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights directly, but yet it destroys something that I see to be of ultimate importance). I can allow this view to be because in my own mind I give leniency to individual, rational thought and decision-making. This meaning that euthanasia isn't taking someone else's life, it's taking their own. And I don't think that this conflicts with viewing life as the most important thing. Just because it's the most important thing doesn't mean that people have to keep their own, it just means we can't infringe upon anyone else's right to life. It's not as if me saying it's an absolute liberty means that this overrides my belief in human rationality and deciding for themselves (as long as it doesn't inflict on others rights directly).

As for abortion, my definition of life isn't that of starting at conception. I believe "life", in the sense that I use it to base my moral judgements on these things, begins at 8-12 weeks when the nervous system and brain develops. Prior to this there is no meaningful life in my eyes.

Quote from Exilement

Is the right to live an absolute right?

This is a bit hard to answer. There are only two reasons to justify killing in my opinion and those are only in extreme last resort situations. (Self-Defense and the defense of other people.) However, these justifiable killing wouldn't be needed if people believe that everyone has a right to life.

Does everyone have this right?

Yeah, everyone goes through similar experiences.

Where does the right come from,

Looking at the consequences of killing and seeing how detrimental it is in general. Also partially the golden rule.

and who is responsible for upholding it?

You mean enforcing it or something else. The law can help enforcing it, but it's ultimately up to the citizens to respect that everyone has a right to life.

Is it a legal right or a natural right? Both? Neither?

It could be considered both.

There is no "right" to our lives. We do what we want with them until we die.

No one has got the rights to take someone's life. But rotting in prison instead of dying fast is just another slow way to die.

Quote from Sadko

No one has got the rights to take someone's life. But rotting in prison instead of dying fast is just another slow way to die.

Exactly.