I don't believe anything has a "right" to life, but that may just be my thinking.
In my thinking a "right" is our, as an advanced() species, acknowledgement of a sentient organisms need to try to fulfill some basic function due to its design.
Every wolf has the need to feed, ergo every wolf has the "right" to hunt the deer. Note that the wolf isn't guaranteed success, only that we acknowledge that it must do a thing (hunt) as part of its design to try to survive. At the same time the deer has a "right" to try to survive the wolf's hunt. It may hide, run away, or turn and gore the pesky wolf if its antlers are big enough. But again, the deer isn't guaranteed squat, only that we acknowledge that it has the need to try to survive AND that its attempt is justified as an inherent "right" of its existence.
There is no guaranteed success at anything in life, only the attempt to do so. To say that someone/something has a right to life is to say that success is guaranteed, which I do not believe it is. Our right to keep and bear arms is only understood that we are fulfilling a biological need to try to survive, and by being armed we may repel an attack that could harm us.
What are the core basic needs we all must have to live? Food, water, shelter. These are 100% absolute necessities to survive. Without all of them we all die. Do we have a "right" to food? Does our country/government/society guarantee that we will all be fed? What about water, or shelter? In the larger species context we must all breed or the species will die. Do we have a "right" to sex? (I'm a libertarian so we could talk here)
But seriously, to elevate life to a right is to guarantee it to everyone, irregardless of the threat to the life.
Methinks this concept is much, much more communistic than people normally consider.
Kind Regards,
Doug
In my thinking a "right" is our, as an advanced() species, acknowledgement of a sentient organisms need to try to fulfill some basic function due to its design.
Every wolf has the need to feed, ergo every wolf has the "right" to hunt the deer. Note that the wolf isn't guaranteed success, only that we acknowledge that it must do a thing (hunt) as part of its design to try to survive. At the same time the deer has a "right" to try to survive the wolf's hunt. It may hide, run away, or turn and gore the pesky wolf if its antlers are big enough. But again, the deer isn't guaranteed squat, only that we acknowledge that it has the need to try to survive AND that its attempt is justified as an inherent "right" of its existence.
There is no guaranteed success at anything in life, only the attempt to do so. To say that someone/something has a right to life is to say that success is guaranteed, which I do not believe it is. Our right to keep and bear arms is only understood that we are fulfilling a biological need to try to survive, and by being armed we may repel an attack that could harm us.
What are the core basic needs we all must have to live? Food, water, shelter. These are 100% absolute necessities to survive. Without all of them we all die. Do we have a "right" to food? Does our country/government/society guarantee that we will all be fed? What about water, or shelter? In the larger species context we must all breed or the species will die. Do we have a "right" to sex? (I'm a libertarian so we could talk here)
But seriously, to elevate life to a right is to guarantee it to everyone, irregardless of the threat to the life.
Methinks this concept is much, much more communistic than people normally consider.
Kind Regards,
Doug