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.

FoolThemAll

Age 21/Male
Lifelong resident of the United States
Roman Catholic (with a few heresies)
Economic Conservative, Social Moderate Republican/Libertarian
My response: #3

I believe in negative rights. I believe that the right not to be physically harmed or killed is the most important of all rights, and may only be violated justifiably when no other practical alternative exists to combat unjustified violations. In certain cases of self-defense, for example.

I don't believe in positive rights, such as the right to food and medical care or the right to police/fire/army protection. I tend to believe that a limited number of them fit well into the realm of government, and knowing that some people will receive help without repaying doesn't cost me any sleep, but I don't believe anyone has a right to them.

I'd like to add that I also agree with choice 5 as it is worded, but as far as rights go, I'm sticking with 3.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

jorgelito

Age: 18-45 male
USA
I believe in God, not dogma. Adherence of the Abrahamic faithsbut find Eastern philosophy to be interesting. Tolerance of others.
Political leanings: common sense - the labels are inadequate but here goes: socially/economically/politically liberal in a classical sense, socially conservative but moderate, fiscally conservative, compassionately conservative.

My response: #3

Common sense rules the day. Don't bother others. Individual rights as far as they do not interfere with others (libertarian in its purest form).

"Do unto others..."
"Practice what you preach..."
"Walk a mile..."
"When in Rome..."
'Live and let live..."

maleficent

Age 40/Female
Lifelong resident of the Northeastern United States
Sort of Practising Roman Catholic
Very Conservative Republican
#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

It's basically the "do unto others" argument and that seems to be the easiest for me to agree to.

I don't see this as a thread about abortion, but rather life and death as well... In #2, that would give me the right to die wiht dignity, because it would be made clear to others that I wouldn't want to be kept alive on machines.

__________________

guthmund

26/Male
Lifelong American resident
Non-practicing Agnostic
Centrist with Liberal leanings
#2

Humans have no inherent or natural rights. In fact, I believe that these so called rights, including the "right to life" are nothing more than civilized society agreeing to live and let live. An unspoken, but largely recognized agreement between the citizenry to agree to stay out of each others private lives.

I believe the burden of providing education and aid to the poor falls on the rich, but not because it's solely in their best interest (it is, but that's not why they should do it) rather I feel the rich have an obligation to fulfill to society at large. The very services (municipal, social services, etc...) they help fund provide the very stability and safety that the rich (and it's just a general term, everyone who has should give proportionately) thrive in. Without these services that keep civilization civilized and that keep society stable, those that have wouldn't have nearly as much. I don't believe the poor are 'entitled' to anything, nor do I believe we should bankrupt the rich to coddle the lax and lazy, but the cost of civilized society has to be paid. It should be paid by those who have benefitted the most from living in that civilized society.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Master_Shake

29/Male
US citizen
Atheist
Libertarian

I started considering this post and was going to make a point about the difference between morals and ethics (I even had definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary). I was going to say that Morally #1, but Ethically #2.

After further consideration, I stand for proposition #1. I don't believe that human life is precious or special, or more important than other things. It's just that because of laws and the behaviour of other people it isn't all that beneficial for me to kill others.

To extrapolate, I currently kill chickens because the benefits far outweigh the costs (allright, I eat chicken, but I'm indirectly responsible for their deaths and if such is morally wrong then I should be held accountable for it). Do I value the lives of humans above the lives of chickens? No. But because of other factors that would create costs far beyond the cost of killing chickens I don't do so.

Here's the dictionary entry if anybody is interested:

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

d*d

27 Male
Uk
wait and see
liberal (mainly, but I hate bieng labelled)

I believe we only have a right to live within the context of the society we are born, this right is upheld and defended in different ways depending on which one you are lucky enough to be born into. It is nessesary to have these rights for the construct of societies to work, I don't beleive it is an unwritten rule that we abide to, I do believe that if stripped away of society and left as animals in nature there would be no rights to live at all but an instinct not to kill your own species.

zen_tom

31 Male
British
None really
Liberal, libertarian, anti-authoritarian
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

I go for somewhere inbetween these 1st three. I think it's very rare in society that it would be in someone's best interest to kill someone else, either in the short term, but especially in the long term. I prefer to live in a society where this sort of thing doesn't happen too easily, that sets in place an environment where conflict doesn't have to result in the death of any of the parties. To this effect I agree in the ideas of social security, because I don't want to see mass uprisings and revolutions brought about by the starving masses as has happened in the past. I don't think anyone has a 'right' to be comfortable, but I think it's better (cheaper, more practical and more citizenly) to keep them that way than pay a huge security bill in order to deter them from taking matters into their own hands.

Seeker

34/Female
Australian Citizen
Spiritually Agnostic
No Political View Defined
My Response: #1

I have struggled with this post since it's arrival. For the same reasons as others before me, I do not think we have an inherent right to live, even an inherant right to uphold or place any moral or ethical standpoints or conditions on anybody. However, the fact that we do this is the paradox that I see in life. I personally do not wish to see us bumping each other off because we feel like it. Also, the moral and ethical judgements we make are very useful in maintaining and perpetuating our existance. They give us both reasons and purpose for living.

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

Hain

18/Male
American Citizen
Agnostic (Strongly agree with transcendentalist and Romantic beliefs and teachings)
Liberal
My response: #3

I choose #3 because I feel that we are meant to do good, to better the lives of ourselves and those around us. When one goes and murders without just reasons and was capable of understanding the consequences of such actions, then this person is not part of a functioning society. This one should then be rehabilitated as much as possible, so that no further harm can be done. If not, then the person should be incarcerated. Things like health, dental, etc. should be earned by the jailed, as I feel it outrageous that for a long while, prisoners received better health care than my father did, as he worked 15 to 16 hour days.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

pwrinkle

Master Shake if people tasted good and you could act with impunity would you eat people?

chickentribs

Age mid-30's/Male
Lifelong resident of the United States
Spiritual Agnostic with a karma chaser
Economically conservative liberal (yes, that can exist)
My response: #6.5

I am really surprised that nobody has given over a 3? Live and let live or die is as much that you feel human life is worth? By that logic you devalue your own life to the point that you wouldn't expect as a right to be cared for when you are too old to care for yourself? If you are struck by a health problem, it is reasonable to expect people will step over you without a thought or care while you starve?

I believe that we benefit or suffer based on the respect human life is given across the board. If you don't value another's life, than in turn your life has no value. My life will be better if I ensure others at a minimum have enough to support life. If I am walking and see a stranger fall down, it is natural to help them up. I do not want to be my brother's keeper, but to be void of any sense of responsibility for others at all puts us all at war against each other.

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

Tophat665

Alrighty, I'll bite:

Your age and gender: 35/M
Your nationality: Connecticut Yankee (Carpet bagging in Virginia of late)
What religion/school of thought you practice: Rcovering Catholic, current Individulalist (I am god, and so are you - Mix of Buddhism, Pantheism, Deist eclecticism, a dab of Christianity, and generalized gnositicism.)
Your political mindset: Social Libretarian, Fiscal Bordeline Socialist (I tend to show up on Bill Clinton in the Political Compass.)

Now, I do not believe that there are <i>any</i> inherent rights, merely social contracts that people mistake for god-given. So be it. So half of my answer is:

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

That said, I think that there is an ethical basis for a higher standard:

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

Except that, for "has the right", read, "should be afforded the oportunity". Eat the rich. It ain't exactly a zero sum game, but there is a certain level of wealth that it is impossible to attain honorably, and wealth over and above that level should be taxed intensively.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Xell101

Option #2
Male
United States Citizen
quasi-deist (lack of better terminology)
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

Everything in excess of a hunter gatherer life style is just gravy as far as I'm concerned nor do I owe anyone anything, nor do they to I. However it is in everyone's best interest to keep the ball rolling on the progression of civilization, and doing so in a reasonable and nice sort of way.

asaris

Male/27
USA
Protestant/Phenomenologist
My official political affiliation is 'wierd'; I vote Democrat, but Scalia is my favorite Supreme Court justice.

My problem answering this survey is that I have a distinction between what is right and what is good. I'm still working out the distinction, so I can't give a very good definition of it, but in a nutshell, if someone acts in a way that is right, they're a decent human being; if someone acts in a way that's good, they're a saint. Or, right is a Kantian based ethic, good is a virtue based ethic. Or, right is what morality requires from the standpoint of natural reason, good is what transcends that. Anyway, by means of the Right, you can get two or possibly three, but the Good requires both 9 and 10 (if you ignore the political consequences of 9, and only focus on what it requires of *you*). The minimalist concept of the Good is that we treat others as we would be treated, and this requires that we aid others as much as we can. The Right doesn't require nearly as much.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

archpaladin

Male / 20
USA
Christian
Economically moderate with liberal leanings, Socially libertarian

My answer: 7

I agree with chickentribs about the base value of human life, thus I cannot give a 2 or 3 as most of you have. I understand the reasoning some may have for giving a higher response number too, but I feel that while human life has some base value, many humans often do not exhibit it, and there would be far too much leeching off of those with drive and fortune by those who did not. While I encourage a welfare system of some kind, those who have their money should be entitled to keeping it if they want to.

__________________
This space not for rent.

Robert_XX

Male 40
UK
Atheist
Socially liberal/economically centrist

My answer is 2. I go along with the original poster in that I strongly believe rights are man-made rather than natural. Nevertheless that is not to diminish their critical importance in a civilised society. Like another contributor I would go along with some of the higher numbers if "has a right to" was replaced by "should be afforded the opportunity to"

flobadon

Male / 21
USA (Iowa)
Atheist
Central to moderately liberal

Realistically 2, but ideally 5.

While I think compassion is a wonderful thing, I don't think it is a trait the vast majority of people possess, nor are they really required to. To be a functioning member of society, most people squeak by by minding their own business and keeping their nose clean because it's minimum requirement.

Option 7 would also be ideal, but people abuse the welfare system. I'd be more than willing to help somebody get back on their feet, but I am not going to support somebody while they bum around. Is that selfish?

mystmarimatt

Male/20
American
Agostic-Deist (A flamboyant mixture, I guess) Who was raised Methodist
Economically Liberal/Socially Liberal (On the Political Compass, I'm right near the Dalai Lama)

I have to go with a mixture of 6-7-8.

To be perfectly honest, I find number 1 (And to some degree, number 2) completely appalling, akin to watching a mother tiger eat her young. But at least a mother tiger eating her young probably has some biological necessity to it. Humans have a natural capacity for compassion and the natural capacity for empathy. I fail to see, why, if we have these feelings, we choose to ignore them. Especially when we have so many tools at our disposal to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Call me a crazy, but I'm rather thankful for that incubator I was in for four months that means I'm alive today.

Humanity, as we've seen time and time again, can rarely exist person-to-person, caring for themselves. It takes a village.

__________________
Words of Wisdom:

If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

braindamage351

Age 18/Male
US
Agnostic (I want to say I'm atheist, but I've forced myself to switch to agnosticism for the sake of logic, although either way God isn't a part of my life.)
Economic Moderate, Libertarian
My response: #2 (Although 1 and 2 are actually completely compatable with each other)

I chose this because in the end, no matter how much I want it there is no actual right to life. We simply agree not to kill each other because it's way too much trouble to be on guard all the time, and life would be completely miserable otherwise. And of course humanity would never have gotten anywhere without cooperation. But we can never lose sight of the fact that all beings are selfish. We only support the greater good for our own good. Compassion and empathy make us feel good about ourselves, but people forget all too easily that if competition disappeared they would simply realize how utterly pointless their life is. In an ideal society the basic needs of people would be taken care of, and instead the competition would be about things that aren't life-threatening things. Although the people wouldn't be any happier, at least they could focus on advancing humanity

On the economic end, I think we should only help people enough to put them in a position to contribute to society. And if they don't get a job quickly enough we have to just cut our losses. Not because of rights, but because it's mutually beneficial.

I'm also strongly against communism and socialism, there's just no way that it would ever work. Anyone who's ever spent 5 minutes with someone else arguing back and forth "I don't care, you decide" knows that you need a leader to get anything accomplished, and if you gain nothing for doing hard work you wont do hard work. The best thing about Republican Democracy is that it gives you a leader, but at the same time doesn't give him enough to power to become a tyrant. The beauty of controlled capitalism is that it provides competition and gives you a reason to work hard, and although inevitably there will be people that live miserable lives in the end capitalism will be the most beneficial to society.

genuinegirly

Age 22/ female
California Republic
Unitarian/Catholic
Libertarian
My response: 7.

I know what you're thinking: a Libertarian saying 7?
Honestly, though. I feel the need to help who I can. I just don't feel that government needs to get involved.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy