I was taught that an inalienable right was something that could not be waived or negotiated away. If, for example, I had an inalienable right to live in the Mojave desert, that right could not be taken away from me, nor could I “voluntarily” sell it, waive it, or give it up in a contract or treaty.
It depends on what you mean. You can agree not to exercise a right, but to claim that don’t have it would be nonsensical. I can agree not to look at you, but I cannot sensibly claim to be blind.
-VM
If there were such a thing as a “right to live in the Mojave desert”, you could not surrender the right per se, but you COULD sign a contract that says “I will not live in the Mojave desert for the next 5 years, even though I have a right to.”
See the difference?
-VM
An inalienable right is one which is deemed inalienable by the society. We create and accept them, and may add or remove them as society changes and we, as a democratic society, deem necessary.
Nope. We have no natural rights at all except those humanly agreed upon by consensus. I may feel I have a right not to be eaten by mountain lions, but the mountain lion doesn’t really care either way. Without a societal structure to define and defend “rights”, the concept is meaningless.
I don’t disagree too much. Jefferson’s end was to inspire colonists of the rightness of breaking away from the mother country while at the same time giving a big middle finger to King George. Flowery prose is useful in accomplishing that end.
But we shouldn’t mistake such pretty rhetoric as a description of the world as it actually exists.
I assume you will admit that it’s a circular reasonning. “the proper function of the gouvernment is X because X is the basis of our government”.
Besides the fact that I’m not Marxist, no, I don’t want to know that. The question asked in this thread is whether such a thing as an inalienable right exists or not. You certainly can explain why you think that a society based on a particular set of right X, Y and Z is “better”, but it doesn’t establish that X is an inherent right. Only that you like it better when everybody benefits from right X.
By the way, I just wanted to point out that this specific element implies that, in your system, I’m under no obligation to protect you from the actions of other humans. For instance, I can refuse to pay taxes to fund courts. Otherwise, you’re finding ways to actively guarantee rights, as you put it.
And I answered you many times (or at least I meant that, if I not worded it exactly that way) : if slavery and universal healthcare are similar, why aren’t slavery and a police force funded with my tax money similar too?
That’s why I don’t think your principles are internally coherent, as you seem to believe. You can’t apply the “I don’t have any positive obligation towards you” to healthcare and at the same time refuse to apply it to something else you’re favoring. Why would I have a duty to provide you with a lawyer for free? Why would I have a duty to protect you from other humans but not from bears, or from germs? I’m not any more responsible for the actions of other humans than for the actions of bears. Whence come this positive obligation to protect you, but only in situations that you handpicked?
If you’re allowed to handpick the situations where I’ve a postive obligation, then so am I. You handpicked “protection from humans”, I handpick “protection from germs”.
They establish principles that we, supposedly, all agree to defend. For one thing, they protect the public from the “tyranny of the majority”, in recognition of the fact that a majority decision is not necessarily a good one. Without an underlying set of agreed-upon principles, what is it exactly about slavery that is wrong, assuming the majority is in support of it?
As a democratic society, we definitely are able stray from these principles, but we do so at our peril. If my right to property does not protect me from having the government take it, how can you expect your right to liberty to protect you from being enslaved or from being forced to attend the Church Of Satan?
Depending on your point of view, you can take “inalienable” to mean that even if I am enslaved, I still have a right to liberty, I just don’t have liberty. However, if you are looking for some cosmic evidence of this inalienable right, you will not find it.
-VM
I submit to the Court a transcript of a conversation between Counselor DCU and Ms Sue Ann Legget, as occured in his car in Cameron Park, overlooking Lake Waco, with the accompaniment of a considerable portion of Jose Cuervo tequila. The conversation concerned the state of affection and regard held by Counselor DCU for the aforementioned Ms. Legget.
I further submit results of an empaneled committee of experts from the Professional Association of English Majors, who have unanimously declared their opinion that the aforementioned transcript is made up almost entirely of “flowery” language.
I rest my case.
The example you gave was Marxist. The “your” referred to the example. I don’t claim to have any idea whether you are a Marxist or not. However, unless you are deliberately misrepresenting yourself, you are a socialist.
The key difference is between what you are obligated to do and what government does. You as a person are in fact not obligated to “protect” me from anything. We as a society “agree” to have a government to protect our rights. The key difference between you and government is that government is not constrained by these rights. If you kill an orphan, I as a person cannot lock you in jail and, thus, violate your right to liberty. The government can. It is this power that makes government dangerous and inspires mistrust in libertarians.
Well, no you can’t, any more than I can refuse to pay Social Security taxes. That’s the point. This power is so devastating that libertarians believe it should only be used to guarantee fundamental rights and nothing else.
A police force (or some sort of government force) is necessary to secure the rights we are discussing. Universal healthcare is not. Government protection is the “necessary evil” that libertarians submit to in order to secure fundamental rights. We accept government provision of this because, so far, mankind has come up with no other way. And like most things that government does, it does not do it very well. Fundamental rights give us a way to draw a line around government that says, “Here and no further” and a set of principles to evaluate new and unexpected issues that arise. While it might be fair to say that having a police force enslaves us, by limiting government to protecting fundamental rights, we are saying “We will not be enslaved to anything other than personal liberty for all.”
You’re almost there. I can only apply it to what I am favoring if I can show that it does not violate an individual’s rights. I am limited no more or less than you are. And this is why I say that my positions are based on a set of principles and yours are not. If you can define a set of principles that allows for government provision of universal healthcare while protecting us from being forced to attend the Church Of Satan, I would truly be anxious to hear what they are.
I think that addresses the heart of it. You can say that this set of principles does not satisfy you–many people have–but so far no one has come up with an alternative set that is more fair and more protective of the dignity of individual humans. I do not object to universal heathlcare because I don’t “favor” helping others, but because it violates this set of principles that I feel protect us from a whole host of ways we can be enslaved.
Give it some thought. While most of your posts have primarily served to annoy me, I do want to thank you for this last set of questions, because it has forced me to think about these things on a level that I ordinarily would not.
-VM
It is more than just pretty rhetoric, but it is also not a description of the world as it exists. I would say that it is a definition of the kind of society that the founders intended to create. Whether or not these truths are self-evident to the reader, the writers indeed held them to be self-evident.
-VM
I’m going to list several principal ideas in a logical progression. You’re welcome to disagree at any point, but I’d like to hear your reasons as well:
- A human being has inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, plus whatever subcategories those three entail (open for debate to some extent).
- He or she may exercise those rights to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others.
- When a person violates the rights of others, he or she forfeits some or all of his/her own rights, depending on the violation. (The details of this point are flexible; that’s another debate)
- The function of government is to protect these rights of its citizens (or all people within its territory including noncitizens - yet another debate) by stopping threats to said rights when possible and punishing the violators. Without this function of government, there is nothing to prevent the violation of rights by those who have the power to do so.
- The military is used to protect said rights from the outside world.
- Police, courts, the penal system, and the capacity to provide patents and copyrights are used to protect said rights internally.
- Anything beyond the protection of basic rights should not be a function of government, as it entails the coercion of at least some individuals.
Ayn Rand outlines this much better in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. There probably is another valid function or two within the ideology that I can’t think of off the top of my head.
I don’t need reasons. You’re the one stating that “inherent rights” and “proper function of the governement” exist. I make no such claims. It’s up to you to prove they indeed exist.
I would need reasons if I was claiming : yes, we have “inherent rights”, and those would be X, Y and Z.
That’s the main issue, and the whole point of this thread. How did you determine that a human being has these rights inherently? All of these rights? Only these rights?
Let’s take this “inherent right to property”. Whence it come? I was certainly born alive, arguably free. But I wasn’t born with an inherent “property” quality. I was probably born with “health” (presumably good). Why isn’t “health” part of my inherent rights? Why isn’t “happiness”? Why isn’t “using my legs to roam wherever I want including on what you state is your property”?
This inherent “right to property” becomes even weirder when you include in it an even more abstract concept like “intellectual property” (as you do later in your post).
I’m going to tell you whence these inherent rights come : they have been hand picked to support a particular view of what society should be like. The Libertarian view. It’s a purely circular reasonning : the “proper function of the government” is X, Y and Z because people have inherent rights A, B and C. And people have inherent rights A, B and C because this support my view that the proper function of a government is X, Y and Z, which would result (by pure chance) in the kind of society I would like to live in.
Still keeping as an example the “tax funding healthcare” issue :
1)You can’t add a “right to health” because in this case you would have to pay taxes to fund healthcare
2)You can’t remove the “right to property” because in this case my right to life, being a fundamental one would trump your right to keep your money, and you would still have to pay taxes to fund healthcare. A 19th century anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist) would definitely not have included a right to property, contrarily to a 20th century libertarian (anarcho-capitalist). How comes they couldn’t notice this inherent right?
So, you conveniently choose the list of “inherent rights” so that enforcing these rights and only these rights would logically result in the kind of social organization you like.
And when I say “logically result”, it’s a very loose statement. Because actually, you interpret these rights in a specific way. For instance :
-Why does my “inherent right to life” include “being protected from people actions” but not “being protected from bears actions”, as I asked previously?
-Why does my “right to property” isn’t a “right to own an exactly even share of the planet” rather than a “right to own whatever money I make”?
-If I have to pay taxes (hence be deprived from my property) to fund the military and police in order to protect our common right to property and life, why can’t I get back part of the money you make, since you were able to live and make money only because I paid taxes hence had my right to property curtailed in your favor?
You’re probably thinking that in return for this tax money, I only get this protection and then it’s up to me to make money by myself. But I can argue that since person X made money not merely due to his own abilities and efforts, but also due to everybody else paying to provide him with the environment he needed to make said money (protection of his life and property), then he has to give back part of the money he made, which will be equally redistributed.
In these three cases, I’m interpreting these “inherent rights” in a different way you do, and I end up with a different society. Actually, I can end up with a mostly communist society. And that’s assuming that I agree in the first place with your selective list of “inherent rights”, and I can’t see any compelling reason to do so, since you merely asserted that they existed, and that no other existed.
You can’t prove that X is an inherent right, nor that Y isn’t one. You can just “feel like” they are or aren’t. And even if you could prove they exist, you would have a hard time defining what exactly should be the practical consequences of these rights. It would be subject to a lot of arbitrary interpretation.
As a practical exercise, concerning the “right to property”, I’d like to know on what is based your inherent right to privately own a plot of land (as opposed to, say, a tool you made yourself). The ownership of land is probably the most important issue, since without land, we would starve in quick order. Since, as a result, your “inherent right to own land” infringes on both my “inherent right to feed myself” (consequence of my right to life) and my “inherent right to walk around” (consequence of my right to freedom), I expect you to have pretty good justifications for the concept of private ownership of land and strong evidences of you being the legitimate owner of a particular plot of land.
- A human has inherent (inalienable?) rights only to life. Liberty (as defined as freedom) and property are both societally defined privileges, rather than rights of any kind.
- In so much as your life, by your actions, has no effect on my life, that is true. However, the ideal of “the greater good” does indeed dictate that your privileges are contained to the rules of society.
- Here again, this is all a determination of society. The privilege of property, for instance dictates, that if you own certain things, you are obliged to pay a debt to society for the privilege of ownership. When it is life that is taken, or the right to life violated, society then exacts retribution from the violator.
- This is true, to the extent that we exclude all forms of contract law.
- True, against foreign enemies.
- True, against domestic enemies
- The protection of privileges occurs at the coercion of at least ‘some’ people at the hands of the government as a basic function of our society. Still, the protection of basic privileges is necessary to protect the single right that humans have, which, of course, is life.
Speaking on my own behalf…
The human being has the right, IMO only to life. Everything else is a societal privilege, in that a human can live without societal intervention, but society cannot exist without human intervention.
The fact that life is a ‘right’ rather than a privlege is one of obvious fact, in that there is and can be no regulation or legislation regarding human reproduction (barring the abortion debate, of course). Everything else is at the basic whim of the laws of a given society.
I’ll say it again: They are the most fair that anyone has come up with. If you have an alternatate proposal, please share. It is very easy to criticize that something isn’t perfect, but I think you should at least offer something that is more perfect. So far, your “better” solution is to let the majority decide–and if I’m on the losing end, then tough luck for me.
Its origins are lost in the mists of time. However, there have been societies that did not include this right. In my opinion, they didn’t work out very well for anyone.
Belief that rights are inherent is not the same as the belief that they are observable. By inherent, we mean that you have them by virtue of being born and do not have to do anything to earn them. It is a statement of belief, not a scientific observation.
Well, try and work out how you enforce these rights (something similar to your previous hypotheticals), and see how they work out–when you define them no better than this, they will probably be unimplementable.
No, the core of libertarianism is the opposite of pre-determining outcomes. Where they come from is from people’s bad experiences with government control and desire to have more control over their own lives. The philosopher who came up with these rights was thinking in the “context” of the French Revolution.
In the framework of the rights, you can’t add a “right to health” because it requires someone else to take responsibility for you. You have a right to not have your health damaged by another person, but you don’t have a right to have your health improved by another person.
You can’t remove the “right to property” without passing all property to the state. You may still think this is a good idea–most educated people do not.
They are not chosen for convenience; they are chosen because they are the best set we have invented/discovered. If, by “social organization you like”, you mean individual self-determination (i.e. free will) , as opposed to, say, dictatorship, then I agree with you.
This has been explained: Bears are not able to participate in this type of “agreement”. They cannot acknowledge your rights. If you don’t understand this, ask a better question. If you just don’t agree, there’s no point in badgering. Like I said, it’s easy to criticize; it’s not so easy to come up with something better.
Look at it like this: If you had a right to an “even share” of all food produced, how much do you suppose would be produced? You’re talking about Marxism. It sounds nice, but it doesn’t work.
These “inherent” rights are already fully defined as we mean them. We are not making up “interpretations” as we go along. Your “reinterpretation” is nothing more than a deliberate misunderstanding is what is meant by them. If you choose, you can come up with an alternate set of rights, and even call them “right to life”, “right to liberty”, and “right to property” even though they refer to a different set of concepts. We can discuss their merits. But they would NOT be the set of rights we are currently discussing.
Not with the set of rights we’ve defined. Possibly with your alternate set.
Clearly you don’t. Fine. What’s your alternative? What are the principles you would enshrine in the government you would want to create?
Not that no other existed, but that these are the fundamental ones that we want government to secure.
All this other stuff you wrote is basically saying that there is no way to “prove” this set of rights. You are correct, there isn’t. The rights are based on a core assumption: Each human is no more or less entitled to make his own decisions than any other. In other words, freedom is preferable to slavery. It seems to me that either you disagree with this concept, or you disagree with the set of principles we try to protect it with. If the former, there’s no point in discussing any further. If the latter, how would you “fix” it?
-VM
Define “fair” objectively.
Communism is “fair” for some people. Libertarianism is “fair” for others. Slavery was definitely “fair” for the slave-holders; they got work done for almost nothing. There is no such thing as objectivity, and never has been. If you can come up with an objective reason why we shouldn’t split the Earth up into equal parts, or reinstitute slavery, or make murder legal, I’d love to hear it. Otherwise, all you’re stating is your opinion.
Another thing: if libertarianism is so damn logical and “fair,” then why has there never been a purely libertarian modern, civilized society? Shouldn’t we have all figured out by now that your system is the best? All societies have at least some degree of socialism; even in ancient times there were public services available, either serviced by slaves or financed on the public dime. What have you figured out that the human race hasn’t?
As you have pointed out, “fair” is subjective. It is for this reason that libertarianism makes sense. It simply is not possible to come up with one defintion of fair, and having none has never worked out. The idea behind libertarianism is to impose as little of this as possible. In recognition of the fact that we all may have a different notion of “fair”, we try to come up with a minimal set of “fair” notions that requires the least imposition possible of my defintion onto you.
Right, the problem is not favoring one group over another. So, our goal is to come up with something that spreads “fair” around as evenly as possible and provides each human the maximum we can imagine. Is this objective? No. I CAN objectively say that it allows me to give you the maximum amount of human dignity and freedom that I can without favoring someone else. Do you have something better? I make no claims that we have perfected it; only that I know of nothing better.
Well, obviously I cannot. It is based on my opinion that your opinion is no more or less important than mine. If we can’t agree to this, I doubt we’ll be able to agree on anything.
I guess because more people are like you than are like me. The scorn you have for my opinion is practically dripping from your words.
No, I think that, deep down, we all want a little favoritism.
Since I am a member of the human race, your suggestion that I might know something that the human race does not is impossible. Unless you are implying I am not a member, in which case it is just insulting.
-VM
Fair? According to what moral principles do you judge fairness? You need a new set of principles to do so, apart from the three “inherent rights” you defined. So, what are these absolute moral principles allowing you to state that an absolute right to property is more fair?
And obviously, this moral principle isn’t blatantly obvious, since most people would state that taking some rice from your 50 bags to feed the starving children sitting by your side is “fair”.
You should read the thread about moral relativism, which conveniently now appears again on the first page.
Nope. I don’t need to propose an alternate proposal. I’m precisely the one stating that there isn’t any such set of “inherent rights”, remember?
Since you state the contrary, it’s up to you to show it’s true.
As for offering something that is more perfect in a specific situation, from my point of view, it can be done only on a case by case basis. And in each case, we’ll have to come to an agreement about the goals we intend to achieve. And the goals we favor will be dependant on a subjective judgement call. About which we’re likely to often disagree, apparently.
It’s the same in any system you can think of. In your system, if I’m born in a poor family and get a serious medical condition, then though luck for me.
It’s just that you happen to think that if the harm isn’t caused by an active human being, then it’s acceptable. Which is purely arbitrary.
I suspect you’ll agree with me that “lost in the mists of time” isn’t an evidence that something is true.
Besides, you’re advocating for an absolute right to property. Trumped by nothing except the other two rights that you defined. And you can easily notice that since the mists of time, as you said, the right to property never has been considered as such. It always has been trumped by other considerations.
As for not working well, going back to my private ownership of land example, a large number of agrarian societies didn’t recognize it, the cultivated land being a collective asset, with plots being attributed on a temporary basis. These societies didn’t collapse.
I know. But then, how do you determine they exist, if there’s no way to observe them or to determine their nature?
I fully agree. A statement of belief. But then any set of rights I believe in is equally valid. And my belief that there’s no such set is also valid.
because you think that “right to life”, for instance is more clearly defined than “right to happiness”? It seems to me it’s not so well defined, or else you wouldn’t have to explain why it applies in situation A (human) and not in situation B (bear) or C (germ).
And “right to use my legs to walk around” is quite clear. Nobody can prevent me from going wherever I want. How this would be more difficult to enforce than your right to property? We just have to agree that the only exception is that I must not infringe to your own right to walk around. So, if you’re already there, I can’t walk on you. If not, then you can’t prevent me to walk there, even on your property.
Ludicrous example? Hardly. Such a right has existed in french law, regarding seashores, since the 16th century at least . You can’t own a private beach and build a wall around it that would prevent me to pass, for instance. And from a theorical point of view, the only serious argument against my right to walk around is your right to privately own land. I asked a question about the basis of this right to own land. If you can’t give a valid basis for it, then you’ll have a hard time arguing against my right to use my legs to walk around, in most cases.
So, if the set of rights you’re convinced are the only inherent ones happen to support the social organization you’re favoring, it’s out of pure chance?
I don’t really believe you, but let’s admit it’s true. You still have to convince me they haven’t been handpicked, but that there’s an objective reason for them to be the only inherent rights Stating “they are the most fair”, won’t suffice. It’s fair also to let me walk around, why would it be more fair to let you decide that I can’t walk on a particular piece of land you’ve decided is “yours”? Once again, what is the absolute moral rule that allows you to assess fairness?
Yes. And?
Why is this “unfair”? It requires me to take care of you and you to take care of me. Doesn’t seem unfair to me.
Why? And if it so, why do you have the right to have your property protected by another person?
Oh, yes, you can. In your society the right to property is protected to some extent, and not in all circumstances. The USA is hardly a communist country. Despite this, you don’t have an inherent and absolute right to property. Your property can be taken to build a road, or to pay your taxes.
Or to pay for my medical care…
And why don’t they? I hope you’re not going to argue about efficiency…you’re supposed to base your political views on principles, IIRC.
According to whom? Because libertarians doesn’t seem to be an overwhelming majority. So, you’d better prove your choice is actually the best one.
I meant “libertarianism” as opposed to “social-democracy” (for instance). And you knew that pêrfectly well.
Except if you intend to argue that a society can only be libertarian or a dictatorship.
[quote) This has been explained: Bears are not able to participate in this type of “agreement”. They cannot acknowledge your rights. [/quote]
It’s irrelevant. I don’t need the bears to agree. I just need you to agree to protect me from the bears and vice-versa.
Once again, this thread is about the existence of inherent rights. It’s not up to me to come with a better set of inherent rights when I’m stating there’s no such inherent rights.
More generally, I don’t think one could find a simple set of a small number of rights, even arbitrarily chosen, that would allow to decide what is “right” or “wrong” in every instance.
But you stated previously that your stance was based on principles, not on efficiency, so you can’t refute this concept on this basis. Or else, if I can show that more medical care will be “produced” with a public healthcare system (which is precisely what I believe) , you would have to agree to implement it.
Yes, indeed. As you mean them. But when you say “we think people have an inherent right to life”, if you don’t explain exactly what you mean, many people could agree with you who would disagree once you explained exactly what you meant.
And indeed, you don’t state that there’s an inherent right to life. Only an inherent right not to be killed as the result of the actions of another human being. Which is significantly different. This “inherent right to life” statement is misleading. You add a number of “but” and “except” to it.
I perfectly understand what you mean. But it doesn’t mean that my own interpretation of “right to life” (including bears) isn’t the true “inherent right to life” TM. Your political philosophy doesn’t have a monopoly on it.
Indeed. But I think that mentionning it is important. Or else, you’re implying that there’s only one way to define a right that people generally approve of (the right to life, for instance), and that your way is the true way.
Then , we’re in agreement.
But by no providing support to someone in need, you’re also limiting his freedom. You might prefer a society where nobody can have his freedom curtailed for the benefit of another person, but it doesn’t mean that it’s objectively the best social organization. It’s highly dependant on what you personnally value.
And, since you’re insisting a lot about slavery, I would not that your ideal society can easily lead to slavery. What about the following hypothetical :
There’s a lot of unemployment. I’m starving. You happen to own a factory and to have some spare food. You propose to me the following agreement. You provide me food for the next two weeks, and in exchange, I’ll have to work in your factory for free for the next 75 years to come 20 hours a day. It’s perfectly compatible with your concept of a society. From this moment on, if I agree, I’m for all intents and purpose your slave. Since I won’t have time for another job, I’ll starve if you don’t choose to feed me during these 75 years, so you even have a right of life or death on me.
Am I free? Yes, I’m free to starve or to become your slave. And your slave in a real and very concrete sense, not in this ludicrous sense you’re so fond of where paying taxes = slavery.
There’s a significant difference between a theorical freedom and insuring that a real freedom is accessible to all. Your society doesn’t guarante any actual freedom, not even a reasonnable expectation of freedom, except in name, if I happen to be born on the bad side of the social gap, except if someone agree to grant me this freedom by providing to me, for instance, food and an education.
In other words, in your system, my freedom is totally dependant on the goodwill of other people if I didn’t get a good deal at the beginning of the game. Including public healthcare, public education, etc… in the social contract, on the other hand, guarantee an actual freedom which isn’t dependant on the goodwill of others. In the same way the basic rights enumerated in your constitution guarantee that these right won’t be curtailed by the tyranny of the majority.
I disagree with the idea that there’s an objective, indisputable set of “inherent rights”. I disagree with the idea that, if there were one or if you choose one arbitrarily, we could deduce from them every element of the the social organization. I finally disagree with the set of rights that you would choose.
By deciding on issues on a case by case basis. Using moral principles that are, by their very nature, arbitrary, but that are also, in a given society, generally shared by a wide majority of people. And finally by consensus.
For instance, freedom of speech can only be a fundamental right only if you’re valuing individual freedom more than the will of God. If you do the reverse, then there’s no such right, because you can be stoned for blasphemy, for instance. Try and prove to a fundamentalist that the will of God is inherently subservient to your individual freedom.
Your rights exist only as long as there’s a social consensus to guarantee them. If you want to implement a particular organization of this society, you’ll have to convince people that your (arbitrary) principles or proposals are better (will result in some greater good they long for, are more in accordance with their moral views, etc…) than other principles and proposals.
There’s really nothing more to it.
I hope I am not repeating what someone else said. I have tried to read the thread, but may have missed something.
I think a case can be made that “inalienable rights” exist if we accept a couple definitions. We are talking about rights which exist “seperate from government” or which exist based on objective criteria as opposed to something which is impossible to take away.
I think cases can be made for life, liberty, the pursuit ofhappiness (I think this is just liberty in another phrase), and property. But I’ll just stick to life for now.
I would like to expand on Sam Stone’s quote of Calvin’s formula. The right to life is an implied agreement amongst humans. It exists as a consequence of the fact that in order for each of us to continue being humans we have to be alive. It is an agreement in the sense that the right to life is really another way to say the “right not to have my life taken away”. But it is not an agreement of the same sort that two people make when they meet for lunch. It is possible to formulate a moral system which does not hold the life of the individual very high. But it is not possible to suggest that such a moral system is more suited fo the use of humans than one which does.
I’m not suggesting that the life of the individual is “better” or “fairer” or any such judgement. I’m suggesting that without placing the life of the individual pretty high up on the moral hierarchy the system in question is not very human. Now, we could postulate that such a system would not be very good for a society of insectivoids on mandark VII, but I think for the purposes of this thread we should stick to human societies and individuals.