@Holo

First of all, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your conclusion.

Second, there is such a thing, because we made it so. We recognise people have this right, and we punish those who violate others' right to live. Of course, there's nuance around abortion laws, self defence, the death penalty, ... and we definitely do not guarantee quality.

@Goddess Tyche When i say you don't have a right to life, i don't mean that life is worthless or that you don't have a right to survive, only that you don't have a fundamental right to live regardless of anything else

For example, in order to live, you require food and water yes? Okay, so nowadays it's impossible to acquire such things without first going to the proper people for permission, if you don't you're punished. In order to get permission, you're usually required to pay some sort of compensation, in order to get the required payment you must perform some kind of action for someone else.

If food and water are a fundamental human right, then who gives up their life in order to provide you with food and water in order for you to live?

The farmer makes the food, the companies filter and produce drinkable water, in those companies, workers tend to the machinery and oversee other workers

Maybe way back, when most of the land was uncultivated, you could argue we had a right to life, since you determined everything yourself, you answered to nobody, but nowadays it is nigh on impossible to survive without some sort of human interaction. In order to acquire that human interaction you must either demand their subservance without cost, or sacrifice your life in order to pay that cost yourself.

So my argument is not that you don't have a right to 'live' but that you don't have a right to 'life'. The difference being i use the first as a verb and the second as a noun.

That being said, like i stated, life isn't worthless. I think fundamentally hindering someone's ability to achieve life is fundamentally wrong. However we've actually legalized indirect murder, whether you like it or not.

On a grand scale it is impossible to live without paying into the system one way or another. In that sense of the word, in order to live you must sacrifice your life.

If life is a fundamental right, then food and water, that which spurs life, is also a fundamental right, but people deprive others of this 'right' in exchange for goods and services and in the basest sense, that is murder

I would define a 'right' as something that someone inherently has and cannot be denied for any reason whatsoever.

If life is a right, then you should be able to drink water without cost from any source, you should be able to hunt without a license, you should be able to grow food for yourself without getting permission from anyone else. This, in my opinion, is not the case

All of this misses the point

oh and btw, food drives don't count, you're demanding the sacrifice of others in order to provide you with your rights. This, in my opinion, goes against the entire point of a 'right'

The distincion of noun/verb is meaningless.

let's not get into semantics unless it is a fundamental point in your counter argument

also i have to take a test in 5 minutes so i won't be able to respond for an hour and a half

In both cases, in its most basic form, it is the right to not have life taken away, that is people who kill you get punished.

Then my opinion is correct, you have the right to strive to live, but not the right to life itself

Well, semantics it is then.

```When i say you don't have a right to life, i don't mean that life is worthless or that you don't have a right to survive, only that you don't have a fundamental right to live regardless of anything else```

literally the first sentence

"regardless of anything else" ... if you remove context, rights are meaningless.

I do not follow your logic, i consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right

I consider rights to be principles of law.

gtg now sorry

I need to weigh in on that, and the semantics is important- a *right* is based on that hypothetical if you were in that uncultivated environ.

If freedom of speech were independent of laws, all countries would have freedom of speech. And we wouldn't have to wage the culture war.

Rights can be carved away by social mores (as enshrined in law) but they're inherent to the individual.

What does "Rights are inherent to the individual." even mean?

Natural.

And i don't think there is such thing as natural or inherent rights.

So it means what I think it means

In this case, I argue that even if they are, they are meaningless without enforcement, which is usually done via law.

Every declaration of right, IMO, means that they are confirming the rights they thought they already had. Never a document create rights on their own, the Bill of Rights doesn't just create rights to free speech out of nowhere, and the US constitution doesn't just create the right to have a US house of representatives. Meaning the rights they thought they had were being violated, and it was up to them to enforce those rights by laws, and in some cases by force.

@Goddess Tyche i apologize for getting your hopes up, i didn't expect an 80 question test, i'm exhausted

@Holo totally agree. It took me a long time to process, the fact someone would want to end the lives of others as well as their own. It redefines the logic to exist.

@TEABAG!!! pardon?

are you saying that you agree with me that people don't have a right to life but a right to use every available means to try and live?

Well the theory of the sucide bombers and the fact that they would want to end their lives and the lives of others. Then, should they receive the death sentence as their punishment? However , they must surely have a cause and that cause means they don't have the right to life because they are trying to kill people. So , when they survive, shouldn't they be rotting in jail because they want to die for their cause?

```However , they must surely have a cause and that cause means they don't have the right to life because they are trying to kill people.``` but i don't agree with this statement

They had a right to try and live, not life itself. The moment they attempted to end their own life, they willingly gave up their right to 'try' and live

@Holo but then the cause ends up with them dying. I don't think they should die; as suffering in life for eternity is: a better outcome for punishment. So, it takes away their want or need to "exit" , so easily. To be honest with you, I have no idea how - suicide is not seen as strange in certain cultures

solitary confinement until death, either that or public execution

<@477272900240670731> http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/ek/EK_Heuristic_2007.pdf