Why is it that when the right to "bear arms" is discussed, a huge amount of time is spent discussing the responsibilities that go along with it, yet when the right to life is discussed, by certain politico-religious groups, there is never any mention of any responsibilities attached? Is the right to life the only right that carries no responsibilities? No obligations at all? Why is the right to life given a free pass?
Obviously, I believe there is a responsibility that goes along with living: the obligation to never initiate force. Those who are loudest about the right to life seem to not agree.
I would say that, rather than a "right to life", we all have a right to defend our life. If a person isn't able to defend their own life, then someone can step in and defend the defenseless. But do you have a right to defend the life of another? Just thinking....
----------------------
Hi Kent.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to "Why is it that when the right to "bear arms" is discussed, ...?" is in the arguer and not necessarily in the argument.
It has been my observation that it is common for people to require an inordinate burden of responsibility as a defacto component of things they are arguing against while not requiring the same for the things they argue for.
I see it as an integrity issue.
Do as I would have you do, not as I do.
I would bet that the same people have a hard time being sympathetic or compassionate, but thats speculation on my part.
I do believe that rights carry responsibilities. While I believe owning and carrying any type of firearm whatsoever is a basic human right, I also believe I have a responsibility to not shoot it randomly into the air or at a neighbor's house. But, that is just common sense... speaking of which, tomorrow's blog will have something to say on that subject.
ReplyDeleteYou have the right to come to anyone's aid who is under threat or attack from another person or persons.... even if the 'victim' was originally the abuser!
ReplyDeleteAt the point the attacker can no longer be a threat, the defensive violence has no right to continue - it too, must, stop.
Zero Aggression Principle, I believe, holds true no matter where it is applied, whomever applies it, whenever it is applied.
So, ZAP must say (IMHO) that if there is aggression, it must be halted and peace must take its place. From the point of peace and order, solutions - real solutions - can be found and applied.
OK. So if you have a right to defend the life of another, what are the responsibilities that come with it? The responsibility to not violate the rights of another during your "rescue"? Where does this put "pro-life" activists?
ReplyDelete" So if you have a right to defend the life of another, what are the responsibilities that come with it?"
ReplyDeleteNot to violate the rights of the person you are trying to defend.
There are many circumstances that the victim may not want your help - and thus, we must abide by their decision and stay our hand.
"Where does this put "pro-life" activists?"
Their activities, so long as it does not resort to violence, are legitimate.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteThose who are big on the "right to life" bit when it comes to abortion(and I'm not one) would say that they are defending lives through violence, and are therefore justified in acting-in the same way that defending someone else by force, who is otherwise defenseless, from murder on the street is justified. And since the law in the case of abortion permits what they see as outright murder against a defenseless person-then the only moral option is the use of violence to stop the murder, and this would be in compliance with the non-aggression principle if it were to apply to situations past SELF-defense.
It's for this very reason that I don't think that as a principle-a thing that is always true-defense of others can properly be termed "principled".
It may be justified, but that is another thing altogether, and really I think that this might be one of the areas where pragmatism has its place. A judgment call needs to be made when defending someone else-it's a matter of perception and acceptance of potential consequences, rather than principle.
Of course, the other reason that defending others should not be thought of as a pure and principled act is war-National Review will tell you how it's wonderful and principled to defend people by blowing them up....no need to give them any extra philosophical ideas.
Mike, those are the very problems I was pondering when I wrote this post.
ReplyDelete