Frankly Existential

Understanding Rights Through Reason

For most rights-based ethicists, the right to life is so foundational that it is often treated axiomatically, meaning it is self-evidently true and there is no need to provide evidence for it. Now, I too agree that life is absolutely a right, but to treat is as an axiom is a mistake. For all rights there must be rationale. Even the existence of rights in themselves is not an axiom, rights have to be proven.

Self-Ownership

The basis for all natural rights are derived from the right to self-ownership. The right to self-ownership is founded upon the fact that we each have conscious and direct control over our bodies. Our capability to act without external permission serves as the necessary premise for our right to do so. There is a limit to this however in which it must be universally applicable to everyone.

Universality

Rights, by definition are universal principles that apply to everyone. Natural rights, such as that of the right to life and the aforementioned self-ownership, are based on premises that equally apply to all individuals regardless of subjective factors such as race, age, or sex. Those that are universal are without exceptions. Those with exceptions are not rights, but privileges. Life is not a mere privilege that we need to continue to earn.

This leads me to the limit mentioned earlier. Our right to behave in the manner we wish to ends the moment it interferes with someone else’s right to do the same thing. This is the principle of universality. Insofar as this applies to life, we have the right to live as long as we do not strip anyone else of that right. This is a simplistic view on the issue, but my concern now is foundational knowledge on justifying rights.

The Right To Die

This is a very contentious issue today. Do we have the right to die?

As mentioned before, the principle of self-ownership extends up until our actions interfere with another. Some would argue that since we own our own bodies we are able to do whatever we please to it, including suicide. Others would push back with the claim that suicide (and other acts including physician assisted suicide) has a broader impact on those close to us and it is not right to engage in it.

So, which takes precedent? Does either one take precedent? Do we have more of a right to our own desires than those of others? Most would respond with a resounding “yes” of course ourselves should be prioritized.

I can find no logical basis for this claim. To say this is to say that we are more valuable than others. This leads to the last principle I wish to discuss.

Human Dignity

In his essay Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals, Immanuel Kant proposes the idea of human dignity. Human dignity is the idea that all humans are of equal moral value based on our capability of rationality and free action — the idea of self-ownership. This extends to any and all conscious humans, though I would argue to extend it a bit farther. That is a separate issue.

With human dignity, our own desires cannot justifiably take priority over those of others. How does this contribute to the right to die?

If our desire to die is going to cause pain in others, which it more than likely will do, can we justify it?

Truly, I am stuck. I don’t know which side is more logically sound or if I am simply wrong altogether. The latter is very likely.

On one hand, if our continued existence causes unbearable suffering, we have control over ourselves and can take ourselves from it at any time. On the other, must we take the damage that will cause those around us into consideration?

Both ideas are valid in my view. I need to take time deliberating this problem. It is most clear to me that suicide itself should be discouraged and options that preserve one’s life while also minimizing their suffering are to be promoted and explored. Those treatments exist very widely. The issue is accessibility, which causes the primary concern for preventing suicides.

Life is to be valued and cherished. It is a gift, no matter how much suffering comes with it. This idea, at least implicitly, is within all of us. It is why we’re all still here. There is value in life. There is hope it will improve.

My current reading of Camus’s The Myth Of Sisyphus has me thinking about the issue of suicide frequently. My personal as well as professional fields of study are linked to its prevention, and I am more concerned with it now than ever before. Whether or not its increased presence in my mind is itself cause for concern, I’m unsure. So long as I continue to search for, for lack of a better term, the meaning of life I see no reason for worry. That is a separate matter not to be discussed on the internet.

Anyway, without drifting off into more tangents, I’m going to close out here. I will be preoccupied with this subject for quite a while so there will be more related posts.

Besides that, thank you for reading. Be well.