MSD

First of all, this is not a thread about abortion. If you came here looking for it, sorry to dissapoint, but I don't want it to go in that direction. What I'm wondering is how our members feel about so-called "rights." Specifically, I want to know how far they feel the right to live extends and should extend. Answer this question based on your own moral or ethical feelings, do not allow existing laws to influence your response.

I'm going to throw in a poll, but I'd like to see some discussion following. If you post a result, please include the following information:

Where in the spectrum you fall
Your age and gender
Your nationality
What religion/school of thought you practice
Your political mindset (Liberal/Conservative is ok, if you have a Political Compass result, that will work fine.)
At least a brief summary of why you picked the segment of the spectrum you did

Here are the options (numbered for poll purposes):

1: Humans have no inherent right to live and therefore killing is acceptible if it benefits the killer

2: The so-called "right to life" is merely a reciprocal agreement in which we agree to let others live if they do the same

3: We have an inherent right to life that is defined by a duty to avoid willful harm to others

4: If possible and convenient, we should make an effort to aid a person who will likely die without assistance

5: If possible, we should make an effort to aid a person who will likely die without assitance

6: Every person has a right to be helped by fellow humans to acquire the fundamental things necessary to support life

7: Every person has a right to be helped by fellow humans to survive, and to be given the means to rise in socioeconomic status if they have been disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control and they are willing to make use of this aid in a productive way

8: Every person has a right to live in a hospitible environment, even if providing this requires the involuntary payment of support by those of a higher economic status.

9: Every person has a right to live in a hospitible and comfortable environment, even if providing this requires the involuntary payment of support by those of a higher economic status

10: The human right to life is absolute, and our duty to preserve life is more important than any other duty we may have to ourselves or others


My answer:
Age 21/Male
Lifelong resident of the United States
Nonreligous Agnostic
Economically moderate Libertarian
My response: #2
I do not belive in such concepts as "nautral law" or inherent rights. My instinctive feeling is that we are merely in a social contract in which we reciprocally agree to let each other live unless another person threatens us with death or harm. Societally, however, I feel that the most beneficial arrangement is for those who are genuinely disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control should be helped, not because they have a right to be helped, but because it is in the best interest of society, and the individuals who make up that society, if there are more productive members rather than dead bodies. In the end, it is more beneficial for us to give everyone a fair chance and let those who are willing to step out of the cave and into the sunlight to do so. I feel that it is proper for those of us who would not be inconvenienced by doing so to pay a very amount of what we earn to improve the society as a whole, as doing so is eventually beneficial to ourselves. No person who refuses to work or learn should be given handouts, but those who want to and cannot should be given an opportunity because when they become productive members of society they will contribute both to the economy as a whole, and to those who are in the low position that thye once occupied.