More evidence that rights-based ethical systems have flawed foundations.

[HappySqurriel]

richardhutnik said:

HappySqurriel said:

richardhutnik said:
Here is another one: Do people have a right to live? Or is life not a fundamental human right?

If you then consider human life a right, and a person find that no one will help them, and they risk death, then would not them doing whatever is necessary to stay alive be justified? They can claim their right to live justified them stealing or squatting in property. Take the case of a child that was abandoned by their parents, and now fends on the streets for themselves, and steals and what not. If human life is a right, aren't they justified to do so?

Or do you want to argue life is not a right people have? If life is not a right then, then what is a right?

Do people have a right to live? In the strictest sense no because eventually they will die and the act of dying in no way infringes on someone's rights on its own ... A person has a right to not be intentionally harmed by the acts of another person (which is why intentional acts of harm are against the law, and people may still be compensated for unintentional acts that harm them) but a person does not have the right to infringe on someone else's rights to live.

Here is a hypothetical question to demonstrate the reasoning for this ...

Suppose an individual has experienced kidney failure and they need a kidney transplant to survive but (for a wide variety of reasons) the compatibility for a donor is low, would it be ethical for him to be able to force a healthy individual to give them their kidney knowing that they health of the healthy person would be significantly impacted?

And in the case of an individual who passes on not deciding to donate a kidney in their will to someone who needs it, are they unethical in not doing this? If you say no to both cases, the life is not a right, and the founding fathers were wrong to name it as an inalienable right.  Beyond this, there is the issues with inaction.

Your view here is not in keeping even with the quote by Burke:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

In the rights-based ethical system, where is people who step up to help, actually stepping up to do so?  Mind your own business gets people killed.  

Where can you argue for someone to act, and do what is right?  You have incidents like the murder of Kitty Genovese:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

 

Consider the case of the toddler who got run over twice, because no one bothered to stop to intervene: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8830790/Chinese-toddler-run-over-twice-after-being-left-on-street.html

 

 

I do notice that you didn't answer my question ... Suppose an individual has experienced kidney failure and they need a kidney transplant to survive but (for a wide variety of reasons) the compatibility for a donor is low, would it be ethical for him to be able to force a healthy individual to give them their kidney knowing that they health of the healthy person would be significantly impacted?

 

 

I already stated that life, in and of itself, is not a right because everyone dies and your life ending does not mean that your rights were violated ... You do have the right to live your life free of intentional harm inflicted by others including, but not limited to, being murdered by someone else.

Now, you seem to confuse what someone has a right to do with something that is ethical for them to do. A person may be entirely within their rights and still do something unethical, but the fact that it is unethical doesn't eliminate that he has that right.

As for your murder cases ...

If someone is in a situation where they are aware of significant risks to other people, and they have the ability to prevent harm occurring to other individuals without suffering harm to themself, they have an ethical responsibility to interviene; but this doesn't mean that the person who risks harm has a right to their intervention.