Can a person have the right to something against his will?

Remove all ads!

Basically, the question I'd like to ponder is whether a person has the right to have something done to himself without his permission, in spite of prohibition, or even despite active resistance. I've been wondering for almost two hours now.

Most simply, the difference is that if the person has a right, he has a claim. If it's only our obligation, we will be at fault for not doing it, but the "target" person will have no claim on us. If there's neither right nor duty (obligation), we just don't have to do it. Additionally, if you conclude we don't have the obligation, you may want to speculate as to whether we have the right to do that (e.g. maybe we don't have any moral duty to stop a drunken person from driving a car but we are morally entitled to?)

Examples include such further questions as:

- Does a person (especially our friend) has the right to be prevented from making an idiot out of himself, which would be done by making him shut up and listen? Or is it just our duty? Or neither?

- Does a child have the right to be punished for wrongdoing in order that he can become a better person through it? Or is it just parental duty? Or neither?

- Does a suicidal person have the right to be stopped?

- Does a drunken person have the right to be prevented forcibly from driving? Or is it just our obligation?

- Does a person have the right to be corrected by us despite needing to be pinned down to hear it out? Consider such actions as confronting with contrary evidence a preaching person who won't listen, given choice in the matter.

- Does a student have the right to receive a failing grade for insufficient knowledge and is consequently letting him pass a violation of his right?

- Does a person have the right to un-demanded unpleasant but constructive criticism on our part if we are able to provide it? Consider a situation where the person wouldn't ask your opinion, would prefer not to hear it at the moment you are talking, but will likely thank you in the end (or you have a good reason to think it's beneficial).

- Does the accused have the right to be punished fittingly for correctional/expiational purposes even though he so obviously doesn't want it, or maybe even considers himself innocent?

Discuss.

 

I'm not sure about your overarching question, but I have some opinions about some of the specific examples.

Suicide: I am going to assume you think that humans have the unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness as long as they don't conflict with others' unalienable rights. With that said, each person has the right to their own life and security. If they want to take their own life, that is their choice, even if it may be considered 'sinful' or what may you. However, if by taking their own life, they are hurting someone else (e.g crashing a car with someone else in it), they lose the right to take their own life. Also, if by killing themselves, they essentially ruin the life of others (such as an orphaned teenager who has to take care of his younger siblings), they should have to take the responsibility and not kill themselves.

To answer your question on whether it is their right to be stopped, I think in most situations, no. If we stop their suicide, we are essentially obstructing their right to their own life (its their's), their liberty (perhaps they are liberated through death?), and pursuit of happiness (if they find they can't be happy on this world in any way), which we shouldn't be allowed to do.

Drunk Drivers: I am not sure what you mean by if it is their right to be stopped, but it is certainly our right and responsibility to stop them. I know it is not a stranger's responsibility to look after a drunk person, but if they see the drunk get into a car with other people (in the driver's seat), we should be allowed and in fact morally required (chew on that ) to stop them, because it will most likely end in a few peoples' deaths if we don't. Personally, if I saw a drunk get into the driver's seat with others and I didn't stop them, I would feel extremely guilty if anyone got hurt because I had the opportunity to stop it.

 

You can always have a right to something you don't want. But you can also choose to waive such a right. As it was once put on the Simpsons...

Marge: You have the right to remain silent.
Homer: I choose to waive that right. BLLAAAARARARAR! WWWEEEEEAAAAHHH!

The examples you give, OTOH, have nothing to do with the individual in question's rights, but others' rights. Like the right not to be run over by an idiot who drinks and drives, or the given right to mark a student fairly.

 

Ooooooh...deep.

I'd say that in at least some of the examples, there is neither right nor duty.

Friendship with the person who's about to look foolish might oblige one to take action 'for their own good', but on the other hand, with some of the people I consider friends? Maybe it wouldn't. Regardless, the average joe/jane on the street has no onus on them to prevent a total stranger from making themselves look the idiot; that's called free entertainment.

As for:

I'd say no, as well. Indeed there IS an obligation here, but it's to the community as a whole, and not the accused. I'd say that the community has a right to punish the accused a) if they reasonably find the accused guilty, and b) feel the need for correction/rehabilitation/restitution.

I think...


But chev? You woulda been a whole lot of fun at the drafting of the Magna Carta, or the US Constitution, or the like!

 

I can see where you're coming from (after a lot of confused "Huh?" and "Wha?" thoughts) It's the "I know I did it, but you never tried to stop me!" argument.

When the person in question is unable to make such choices objectively it is not so much a right on their own part, but a moral matter on the part of the other person. Could you live with yourself if you saw that drunk driver friend of yours get in their car and drive off with the chance they could kill themself (Or someone else) without forewarning them, only to find out later they had died? Or watch some woefully inept student go forth into the world and try to do a job they have no idea how to, convinced they're the dog's b****cks?

As I said, this is not a given right because there is no obligation on the other party to act, but as a bystander, friend, parent or whatever we feel morally obligated to say or do something about it. After all, we are all responsible for our own actions in the end, and we should not rely on others to tell us every time we are acting the prat.

Some (Dare I say "self-righteous"?) people see it as their duty and obligation to intervene in such situations, to teach someone a lesson maybe, but when it boils down to it these things are our own responsibility.

 

@Saber, Felinoid: I just want to consider the right of the person in question (drunk driver, student etc), not the rights of other people - let's leave the victims of drunk drivers alone for a while.

@jaded empath: What about the right to being resocialised? No such thing? And I'm not saying yes or no myself.

And...

@Jan Jansen: Hmmm... Are you sure if we feel obliged it's just a feeling? Maybe if we feel obliged, it's for a reason? Such as the moral obligation to listen to one's conscience? I'm not as wise with my questions as Socrates was, but bear with me for a while.

 

It's hard to explain this exactly since the circumstance is so specific. People may be subjected to the privaliage of somebody looking out for them even if it is not in their best interests at the time yet in no way is anyone obliged to assist that person in that reguard.

If somebody was to have the right to have any number of those things happen to them then the person performing those actions would have to both have the legal responsibility AND the legal authority (free from prosecution) to perform those actions otherwise the situation wouldn't work. I might feel morally obliged to stopping my friend from driving home in an intoxicated state since I believe the chance he might kill himself or somebody else is far higher than if he were sober but if I prevent him from getting in his car then I'm committing a crime of assault and if I take his keys then I'm a thief.

The simple answer to your question, Chev, is 'no'.

I love Jan's quote of

Simply put, Chev, if there was a law in effect that granted people the rights you're talking about then personal responsibility simply wouldn't exist. Everybody would be responsiable for everyone else but themselves.

 

You have the obligation to speak up to stop him, but if he won't stop, then enjoy the show...

Parental obligation.

Yes. They have the right to have their troubles heard in hopes of a better solution.

A drunk has NO right to drive.

Depends on the offence he wants to commit. I have done similar that to prevent a friend (who was engaged to a family member at the time) to prevent him from doing something that would have gotten him arrested.

A student has the right to the grade he earns. If that's an F, then so be it.

Happens to me all the time here in the alleys...

The convicted are punished according to the offence and the wisdom of the judge. The right to decide is forfeit upon committing the crime.

I have to agree with that...

 

If we're going from just that perspective, then the answer is no. You don't have a right to be stopped from doing stupid or destructive things; the reason it's done is to protect others' rights, not your own. It has nothing to do with the rights of the person in question.

 

As for suicide - you cannot do anything against suicides in privacy. If someone is really serious about it, he will succeed.

The idea according to German law is that: An elemental human trait is self preservation. Someone suicidal is acting unhealthy. Thus he has to be stopped in his own interest, as he probably is not at his senses. Also, going public suggests a cry for help. That basically is the argument how to counter the right of self determination in such situations, and reinterprete it as the right to be helped despite it.

Basically it is a question of public order. It sounds cynical, but public suicide is simply not behaving orderly. It sets an example that inspires the fragile if it becomes public. Reporting on a suicides usually led to series of imitations. Curbing reporting on suicides has led to less suicides being reported. That also protects the health of transport workers with the ungrateful task of driving trains, trams and the like. There is an informal agreement between the German press and authorities on that.

The essence is that your free will is free only insofar as you mustn't infringe comparable or more important rights of your fellow citizens, or the public order.

Human dignity is another example. Throwing dwarfs is considered dehumanising and banned as a result of German constitutional law. A dwarf, who wanted to earn money by allowing to be thrown, went to court against the rule, argueing he is an artist and being thrown is his art. He lost: The court said that he is not allowed to give away his dignity, for it is in the public interest for him to preserve it. That trumps the right to exercise his 'art', which is also constitutionally protected.

 

Well, I must admit I had to look that up to be sure of what it actually means...

That one...well, okay; let's step aside for a moment - my definition of 'human rights' derive from the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" - if some action would deny a person their LIFE, then you could say (from my perspective) that they have a right for that action not to be done.

But then we get the dilemmas involving conflicting rights...

With resocialisation, there may be something there: take a new recruit that is being 'indoctrinated' into a military - that act of resocialization isn't a right of the recruit, but an obligation to be undertook by the recruit; the military organization has a 'right' to ensure that its members will operate as cohesive units of the appropriate mentality for their tasks.

...but say this recruit completes indoctrination, and performs his duties in the military, and is later mustered out. NOW he has a right to be 're-resocialised' so as to integrate with civilian society - the previous gestalt change was voluntary (presumably) but not 'undoing' it when the recruit no longer needs to serve would likely deny him his pursuit of happiness.

So, HERE we have an example where I'd flip sides.

 

In fact, driving is considered a priveledge in America... you have no right to drive at all. That is why the government can stop people from getting licenses - there is no right to drive. So a person, who already only has the priveledge to drive, forfeits that priveledge if they take negative advantage of it. If that doesn't make sense, what I am trying to say (I think) is that a drunk driver has absolutely no right nor priveledge to get into a car because 1. no one has the right, 2. he is potentially an extreme risk hazard.

 

So that could apply against Prostitution too...

So he has the right to forfeit that priveledge if he chooses...

 

Sometimes that's the kindest thing for them, after all, we only force them to stay, because their death will hurt us.

What right do we have to make them suffer for our own preferences/desires?

We force our own belief upon them that life is inherently enjoyable and that with the proper fixes can be made the way we want it to be and in turn validate our own beliefs of life through our success with another. Mind you, I'm curious as to whether medication is really a success, mood stabilizers typically decrease cognitive speed and dampen emotions, anti-psychotics are notorious for destroying emotional capacity and anti-depressants have a wide range of side effects that can make the situation even worse then it is without medication.

We can't assume our own values are universal or right for that matter. Specifically in the case of culturally approved methods of suicide once found in Native American, Pacific Islander and Japanese society. Would it be kinder to force them to exist as a social outcast or misfit? Indeed is existence more important then the quality of one's life?

Maybe suicide should be stopped if it's impulsive in western society, if one event triggers it, but if the desires are built up over time and the action is decided upon under considerable deliberation, who's to say this isn't the best outcome? Besides, as Sartre argued, suicide is the last act of freedom, the one option that always exists.

Suicide is the ultimate act of defiance when faced with being powerless.

 

If I'm reading your question correctly, then No, they shouldn't have the "right".

People should not have the ability to make a "Claim" because someone didn't try (or tried and failed) to stop them doing something they wanted to do.

The possible exception to this is suicide. I believe there is a legal obligation on the British public to do anything in their power to save someone elses life, although I don't know if this extends to suicide. (but it's not as if someone who wasn't stopped is going to make a claim)

The world would be a better place if people just took responsibility for their own actions.

 

The army. If you join the army you may be required to do things that will kill other Humans. A perfect example is consription (the removal of free will).

 

Nobody has the right to be saved from their own poor judgement but a friend should feel obliged to point out: "Look, have you considered that your actions could result in incarceration/ loss of dignity/ an STD, etc.?"

Anyone who decides that suicide is their best option has a right to *not* be stopped. If the attempt is half-hearted, i.e. any attempt which draws attention to the pending suicide, those in proximity should feel compelled to intervene. However, an individual has no claim to such intervention.

A child has every right to be punished for bad behavior. Parents have chosen stewardship and are obliged to mold their ward as well as possible and to what extent is possible. Although, the claim for poor molding would be limited as the child reached adulthood. Firstly, I believe that genes play a far larger role in determining what a person becomes than do the actions of the parents. Secondly, as an adult, an individual is responsible for correcting his own flaws, even those which parents have instilled.

I generally don't approve of "it's for your own good" arguments. However, receiving an earned failing grade is an exception - the student has a right to it and the teacher has the obligation.

 

what? why should that person have to take that responsibility? seems like your an advocate to slavery myself. i believe that anyone should have the right to die when ever they want, they didnt ask to be brought into this hell struggle of a world, in forcing them to stay, your making them a prisoner, in forcing them to stay to help others or a community, you are making them a slave

 

You'll notice that the example Saber gives is of "an orphaned teenager who has take care of his younger siblings" is, in fact, an instance of the consequences of 'selfish suicide' - the parent(s) off themselves with no consideration to the people who are UTTERLY DEPENDENT upon them.

And as for that instance, I've got no sympathy for someone who doesn't put their children before their own selfish wants - they brought these people into the world and even BIOLOGY dictates they have an obligation to raise and care for their own offspring; if you wanna label that 'slavery', hand me a whip.

Once again, we get to the issue of someone being too dang selfish about what they WANT to do (no one needs to end their life; it's solely a personal choice that goes against biological imperatives to continue to exist) over their responsiblities to other people - it's nice to say that people have the right to end their lives in principle, but often in practice, civilisation is far too interconnected to afford various people this right.

And YES, I believe that people should have a right to self-determination to the extent of suicide (Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, after all) but NOT if exercising that right denys other people their rights...

 

youve changed this around now, from an orphaned teenager caring for his younger siblings to a parent, the teenager didnt create the situation why should he have to live to care for these other children, while in the case of the parent i lean more towards agreeing with you, i still dont believe that person should be forced to live, maybe this is why you see situations where a parent kills their children and then themselves - do you prefer this instance.

does it? when did biology dictate that they have obligation to the child? your falling into the 'moral' view of society, where others tell people how to behave and how to think that all human life is precious even an undeveloped child. which is completely impractial. nature on the other hand is completely practical and has no moral qualms about doing what has to be done, many species, will, if it cannot take care of its offspring simply kill it, preventing the needless suffering. and when its old enough, in the case of a human i would say 12 - 15 it is a brilliant time for the child to learn self reliance.

noone needs to live either, youll find that there is little in this world that people actually need, but they will fight for it, freedom for example.

why should anyone be forced to serve civilisation?
the way i see it, i was forced into a world, then i was then forced to attent school so that i can be forced to earn money so that i can be forced to pay taxes and if i do anything that my corporate masters disagree with i will be locked away by force - why should i give a damn about civilisation and society?