Posts
The idea of absolute rights is a highly contestable subject. The argument put forth by Gewirth in his essay is well-thought out and highly logical. All other points aside, the one absolute right he claims exists, that "all innocent persons have an absolute right not to be made the intended victims of a homicidal project." In thinking about this idea, I have tried to formulate an exception to this "absolute rule." (Although, I want to note that I believe absolute rights exist before pursuing proving Gewirth's theory wrong.)
Suppose you take an individual working at a gas station. The gas station is robbed, and in the process the clerk is shot and mortally wounded. The clerk, prior to death, was a convicted sex offender. Now, while this is an extreme example consider this: The clerk had committed no offense to cause the sudden resignation of his life during the situation at the gas station; however, many would argue the clerk forfeited his right to life/innocence at the point he had committed his prior bad acts. While he was innocent of the intended homicidal project he was forced to partake in, had the clerk forfeited his right to life through other means?
Another possibility involving cultural difference: Say a man is killed during a suicide bombing in the Middle East as part of a holy jihad against "foreign invaders/entities." Now, those conducting and orchestrating the bombings would say the man indeed was innocent of the homicidal project, but he was present in the area at the time so he was an intended victim. His sacrifice of life for the greater good, though, was one that gained him greater status in the afterlife (ESPECIALLY because he was not the target of the attack). In that mindset, the death can be justified as necessary and non-absolutist regarding Gerwiths rule, and the man's innocence was not violated due to the man's choice to enter the area at said time. For such a scenario, the idea of chance must be considered. Now, of course, many would argue that in this case Gerwith's argument still holds true for this man.
While the latter argument is not as coherent as I like, it gets me to my main point. The problem for me, at least, comes in our interpretations of innocence regarding intended victims. At best, we must define innocence, or at least clarify at what point our choices remove our innocence. In order to maintain a degree of absolutism, this clarification must also be universal. However, I wouldn't presume this to be possible.
Hopefully the above conept(s) are totally incomprehensible or too scattered for understanding...
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
"While he was innocent of the intended homicidal project he was forced to partake in, had the clerk forfeited his right to life through other means?"
ReplyDeleteEven if the clerk had forfeited his right to life through other means it does not follow that his death is warrented in that circumstance. We can't all just go around killing convicted sex offenders because they may have forfeited their right to life. How exactly does one forfeit one's right to life anyway, and why are you so sure of this?
One example that I thought of was of a man who is standing alongside a train track next to a switch which either diverts the train at a fork in the track several miles away to the right or to the left. Suppose, that on the right side is the man's son, tied to the tracks, and on the left side there are 10 innocent people tied to the tracks. A train is coming and the man is to far away to personally save the either chained persons or his son. He also has no means of stopping the train or calling for assistence. The only choice he has is which side the train will go down and in effect who or whom will die.
What side of the track would Gewirth send the train and why? I personally am struggling with this example and applying it to Gewirth, thoughts?
Gerwith would argue that, under this circumstance, there is no justifiably right answer to which way the train would go. If anybody's rights are violated, it is not the man making the choice. Instead, it is whomever has tied the individuals to the track that is at fault. The man's choice is similar to that of torturing mother example put forth by Gerwith, I think. The man cannot be punished for choosing his son over that of ten others, as he has that responsibility to his son which, in the father's mind, is absolute.
ReplyDeleteIn the first example, I was not taking a side. However, it seems contradictory that a man is innocent of the situation but has lost the right to life. Now, granted, our body of law may not say the man in my example lost his right to life. I'm talking about the conception by some that he did (which I think many would find an agreeable idea due to the nature of the crime sex offenders commit). My question is concerned with the separation of innocence--can people be innocent of a situation involving a homicide, but at the same time that individual has condemned his life based on some other action? If these are separate-how can one account for the difference, as both involve presumed "innocence" and right to life?