Consider all the rights the government guarantees us as US citizens. The Bill of Rights outlines all we can’t do and are entitled to because we are subjects of the United States. Can we draw the line between governmental rights and natural rights?
It sounds simple, but I think these two different types of rights are a lot more muddled than it seems. Is freedom of speech a natural right? I don’t think so--it doesn’t necessarily mean life or death, and it sounds more like a civil right to me. Freedom of the press? Civil. Assembly? Civil. There’s a reason we only talk about civil rights in the context of the government--they all sound and in practice are much different than a right derived from inherent human dignity.
Or are they? Are rights based around a right to life not just more forms of protection from governmental interference? The right to life would prohibit the death penalty, for example, just as the right to free speech would prohibit strict government censorship. And the same applies for these rights guaranteeing protection from interference from others. Between life and press, it all sounds the same.
The reason I’m making this point is because I’m confused. I’m confused about the right to life, it’s implications, and how I should view its application within the frame of the government and the criminal justice system.
Part of a pluralistic society is agreements on how the government should be run. Almost everyone, not including topics like abortion and capital punishment, agree on basic and equal protections of human life (see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). It transcends religion and beliefs in God. That might point to a human agreement rather than a divine guarantee. Maybe that still doesn’t mean Christians can’t believe those rights come from God. If they do, I find hard to draw the line between when they come from God and when the come from government.
We will talk about the implications of that confusion next week. Until then!
Add comment
Comments