Is There a Right to Live?

[Zinjanthropos]

Does each living organism, be it plant or animal have the right to live? I think to say they do presents a paradox since it’s consume or be consumed in order to survive. It appears then that organisms maintain the right to kill one another, not necessarily for food but also protection and living space.

It’s as if an organism’s right to kill, possibly earns the right to live (on). IDK

[Syne]

There's a difference between human and animal rights. Why? Because humans can conceive of rights and animals cannot. If you cannot conceive of a thing, you cannot be expected to abide by it. Since animals have always been necessary to the survival of both humans and other animals, by nature, they already don't have any ultimate right to life. We can't very well end all animal deaths at the hands of other animals, in nature, without driving many extinct. But being humane, we do generally afford them a right to not suffer...at least at human hands.

But when people speak of a "right to life," they are usually talking about a negative right for humans. Negative rights are not guarantees "for" things, but guarantees "from" things. So the right to life is the right to not have another human kill you. It is not the right to force others to take care of your lazy ass.

So no, every living organism doesn't have a right to life. It has the natural right to fight for survival, win or lose. It would be pretty preposterous to presume a right to life for things like bacteria.

[Zinjanthropos]

There's a difference between human and animal rights. Why? Because humans can conceive of rights and animals cannot. If you cannot conceive of a thing, you cannot be expected to abide by it. Since animals have always been necessary to the survival of both humans and other animals, by nature, they already don't have any ultimate right to life. We can't very well end all animal deaths at the hands of other animals, in nature, without driving many extinct. But being humane, we do generally afford them a right to not suffer...at least at human hands.

But when people speak of a "right to life," they are usually talking about a negative right for humans. Negative rights are not guarantees "for" things, but guarantees "from" things. So the right to life is the right to not have another human kill you. It is not the right to force others to take care of your lazy ass.

So no, every living organism doesn't have a right to life. It has the natural right to fight for survival, win or lose. It would be pretty preposterous to presume a right to life for things like bacteria.

Would the term birthright be more suited to all organisms? Entitlement? Born with a particular trait(s) that enables greater chance of survival. If I have two of the same species and one is better equipped to survive their current environment then is the ill equipped one entitled to live on?

I guess I’m asking if natural selection works in every case? Are there rare circumstances when it doesn’t or would we know? I would think that no matter what you’re born with that there’s a right of birth that says to go on.

[Syne]

"Right to life" just doesn't apply to animals the way it does to humans. But yes, animals are more subject to natural selection of the better adapted. Natural selection generally only fails when humans intervene. Like breeding dogs that can no longer breed on their own. Nature would quickly remove that breed

[C C]

Does each living organism, be it plant or animal have the right to live? I think to say they do presents a paradox since it’s consume or be consumed in order to survive. It appears then that organisms maintain the right to kill one another, not necessarily for food but also protection and living space.

It’s as if an organism’s right to kill, possibly earns the right to live (on). IDK

Rights are artificial -- invented. In terms of creating rights for themselves and anything else, humans can go wherever their emotions, special interests, problem-solving, and motivated reasoning lead them by the nose ring. In the context of some roads traveled, that might have required ignoring potential consequences, or being oblivious to them.

Since there are processes and circumstances that brought _X_ organism into being, one might force-fit that to be construed as a tiny part of the universe non-consciously granting it a right to live. But the cosmos has no obligation to protect and ensure the survival of it -- that's up to animal's own resourcefulness and adaptation. If it's a socially organized species, that includes the benefits that fall out of such, especially if it is preyed upon rather than predatory. IOW, it might acquire a shepherd or guardian angel via the robustness of its own community, but the world at large is indifferent.

And "moral conduct" at that level is just whatever behaviors, tendencies, and strategies either work or don't generate enough problems to wipe out the species. That's why "appeal to nature", at least when it's a case of pointing out that "animals do it", is misguided. Animals do everything -- including deception, theft, arbitrary killing and infanticide. Antinaturalism is an extreme at the other end.

[Syne]

Any organism has the natural right, and even a biological imperative, to seek its own survival. Whether it succeeds or not is not guaranteed, but neither is any human right, as criminals can deprive you of them.

That's the problem with not understanding the difference between negative and positive rights. Only the notion of positive rights would presume an "obligation to protect and ensure...survival." Negative rights only seeks to protect from harm, not ensure food, shelter, or other means of survival.

John Locke probably had the most concise definition of natural rights for humans. Those being the negative rights of life, liberty, and property (what you create or gain through free trade). These basically mean that you have, on top of the animal natural right to seek your own survival, the right to not be illegally killed, imprisoned/enslaved, or stolen from. Obviously, no government that even partially respects your right to liberty can 100% ensure these rights. They can only seek to protect them.

[Zinjanthropos]

If there is any right to live at all then I think it might be the right to kill another organism in order to do so. In some strange quirk, the fundamental paradoxical evolutionary right of killing in order to live exists. Any right to live has to include killing another organism. Depriving an organism of the right to kill will probably mean it dies and is in itself also a paradox.

[confused2]

If there is any right to live at all then I think it might be the right to kill another organism in order to do so. In some strange quirk, the fundamental paradoxical evolutionary right of killing in order to live exists. Any right to live has to include killing another organism. Depriving an organism of the right to kill will probably mean it dies and is in itself also a paradox.

We all have killer genes. Americans like to display them publicly while other cultures regard such displays as obscene. Difficult to know what culture I would prefer to live in. Not.

[Syne]

Again, that's why the right to life is different for humans and animals. As CC mentioned, trying to apply the same standard to both is the fallacy of appeal to nature.

[Zinjanthropos]

If there is any right to live at all then I think it might be the right to kill another organism in order to do so. In some strange quirk, the fundamental paradoxical evolutionary right of killing in order to live exists. Any right to live has to include killing another organism. Depriving an organism of the right to kill will probably mean it dies and is in itself also a paradox.

We all have killer genes. Americans like to display them publicly while other cultures regard such displays as obscene. Difficult to know what culture I would prefer to live in. Not.

Well, if you want to get political, it would seem the American founding fathers were on the right track with the right to bear arms. If you have to kill to survive then does being armed improve one’s chances?

Personally I’ve never owned or fired a gun. I figure I’m at a distinct disadvantage because others do.