I do, that is included in the term ‘responsibility’, a parent, teacher or guardian has the responsibility the ensure the welfare and safety of the children under their care. Yet, we do not jail anybody if (for example) a child in their care develops cancer.
Likewise, all people have an obligation to do what they can, but are not to be blamed if they are unable to for no fault of their own.
The saying is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Even the disabled, in almost all cases, have considerable ability. In many cases it might not be enough to cover their cost of living, and the state must subsidize them, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be encouraged from giving back what they can however.
In other words, that child does not need to earn their living. That disabled person does not need to earn their living. They are alive through no fault of their own and society has a duty to keep them alive as much as they can.
In the case of the child, they are expected to earn their living upon adulthood.
In the case of the disabled person they are expected to earn their living in the event of a suitable cure or accomodation.
No one, neither me nor you has an inalienable right to be alive, how could we when it is a right that one day nature will in no uncertain terms, deny us?
You might as well declare space flight a human right.
I do, that is included in the term ‘responsibility’, a parent, teacher or guardian has the responsibility the ensure the welfare and safety of the children under their care. Yet, we do not jail anybody if (for example) a child in their care develops cancer.
Likewise, all people have an obligation to do what they can, but are not to be blamed if they are unable to for no fault of their own.
The saying is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Even the disabled, in almost all cases, have considerable ability. In many cases it might not be enough to cover their cost of living, and the state must subsidize them, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be encouraged from giving back what they can however.
In other words, that child does not need to earn their living. That disabled person does not need to earn their living. They are alive through no fault of their own and society has a duty to keep them alive as much as they can.
Life is not earned. You do deserve to be alive.
No.
In the case of the child, they are expected to earn their living upon adulthood. In the case of the disabled person they are expected to earn their living in the event of a suitable cure or accomodation.
No one, neither me nor you has an inalienable right to be alive, how could we when it is a right that one day nature will in no uncertain terms, deny us?
You might as well declare space flight a human right.
I mean… The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (plus, you know, murder laws) may disagree with you. But have fun with your libertarianism.
Ok, prosecute all eight billion of us for the murder of the seventy million that died last year, see how that works out for you.
What are you even talking about now?
Positive Vs. Negative rights, we’ve been talking about it this entire time. Saying “You can’t murder him” is different from “You can’t let him die”
Again- Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It cannot be any clearer. I’ll even show you the relevant article. It’s very concise:
Maybe you are not in one of the 48 of 58 UN member states in existence at the time that voted in favor of it. Note that there were no votes against it.
If so, I’m sorry your country does not care about basic human rights.
Then why does the UN let 60 million people die each year?