Which IYO is the most accurate statement:

[Bozo Erectus]

1. People have an inalienable right to life.

or

2. People have an inalienable right to try and stay alive.

 

[thetrooper]

Difficult this is. I'm leaning towards #2.

 

[Solver]

Hmm, I see no meaning in the second statement. A right to life is understandable, but what does a right to try anything mean? Trying to do something is an action, not a right... hmm.

 

[Turner]

What 'right to life' does a man drowning in a sea have?

Right to try and stay alive I agree with.

You have any idea how long I've been waiting to say that?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Hmm, I see no meaning in the second statement. A right to life is understandable, but what does a right to try anything mean? Trying to do something is an action, not a right... hmm.

Meaning that you have a right to fight for your survival, as opposed to having a right to live.

 

[C~G]

Meaning that you have a right to fight for your survival, as opposed to having a right to live.

So in other words if man is drowning into ocean we left him to drown according to the second statement and not try to drown him ourselves while with the first statement we try to save him?

For me the both are kinda the one and the same.

 

[Turner]

No, meaning that just because a man is drowning in an ocean doesn't necessarily mean he'll be saved. That doesn't mean an effort shouldn't be made.

 

[Gothmog]

Neither makes much sense to me.

How about this:

As humans we should try and create political structures that ensure equality of opportunity for all members of our society?

 

[Riffraff]

voted for the right to life, especially cause you can't someone deny someone trying to stay alive.

 

[C~G]

For me the first one is absolute statement that holds no water.
We may try to approach it but we aren't gods.

The second one is the one that actually makes sense since we cannot in many cases effect the person's chances of survival even if we would like, only we can do is to do our best according to the principals we can agree with.

But when compared to each other they start to reflect kind of both being insane options.

And that is because first one is absolute while second one is relative.

 

[Brighteye]

I don't think the second one is accurate, but it's the more accurate of the two. Rights entail duties for everyone else to respect that. The only person who can stop you trying to do something is yourself, so you can't have a right to try to do something.

I would rather say that we naturally have the inclination and will to save our lives, and there can be no justification to condemn it as immoral. This statement is longer than your second one, but more accurate.

 

[The Last Conformist]

What 'right to life' does a man drowning in a sea have?

One analogous to the property rights of a man whose house is on fire.

 

[puglover]

I don't think humans have rights at all. Society may grant them rights, but I don't believe they are "inalienable."

 

[C~G]

IMO the first one also requires certain kind of responsiblity from others (even to the point of threatening others inalienable rights) while the second one gives coup-out for the responsiblity in certain situations.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What 'right to life' does a man drowning in a sea have?

Right to try and stay alive I agree with.

You have any idea how long I've been waiting to say that?

You have any idea how long I've been waiting to learn how to use such a small and nearly invisible font?

Glad you got a chance to say it, because I think its an excellent way of looking at the question. Not sure it settles it, but a good way of looking at it.

So in other words if man is drowning into ocean we left him to drown according to the second statement and not try to drown him ourselves while with the first statement we try to save him?

No I dont think so, whether or not an attempt is made to save him involves other rights the potential rescuers may or may not have, not the drowning mans right to live.

 

[aneeshm]

My opinion - man has an inalienable right not to be killed.

 

[Turner]

You have any idea how long I've been waiting to learn how to use such a small and nearly invisible font?

Happy to oblige.

Glad you got a chance to say it, because I think its an excellent way of looking at the question. Not sure it settles it, but a good way of looking at it.

No I dont think so, whether or not an attempt is made to save him involves other rights the potential rescuers may or may not have, not the drowning mans right to live.

Indeed, that's the flip side to his right to life. Or right to try and survive. You have to take into account the cost in other's lives. The one's rescuing are putting themselves into harm's way to save the one who's drowning. Or caught in a fire. How many times has someone gone lost in the mountains, or at sea, and more people have lost their lives trying to save him than was saved?

But I don't think you can count the cost before trying to rescue someone. I think it can only be tallyed up after the fact.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

My opinion - man has an inalienable right not to be killed.

Why? Im not challenging you because I disagree, just trying to determine what you base that on.

 

[C~G]

No I dont think so, whether or not an attempt is made to save him involves other rights the potential rescuers may or may not have, not the drowning mans right to live.

If we don't reflect the rights with other people's rights, responsibilites and freedom of action, there's no meaning to either of those statements since nature takes care of itsellf.

And then I have to agree with puglover.

I don't think humans have rights at all. Society may grant them rights, but I don't believe they are "inalienable."

 

[QuoVadisNation]

umm.. I think it's in between. People have an inalienable (natural or positive) right not to be deprived of life by his fellow man except by the judgement of his peers.

But even this second part is validlly objectionable. But that's how it is the States. By this logic, I might add, the death penalty and the abortion can be jusitified.

Bozo, where "rights" come from are a topic on it's own, man. It could be a positive (legal) law invented by man or it could be a moral law that people follow in order to keep society flowing properly, outside any governmental agency. Making sense? o_0

edit: I tend to follow the idea that it's a moral law created by man. That way, it can still be plugged even if the legal government ever denied it.