Actually, we’ve been putting ourselves in chains since beginning of human existence. In Hindu philosophy (and many would agree that Hinduism and Buddhism are more like philosophies than religions), there are many allusions to illusion. My favorite is story of Narada and maya, or “illusion” (although I personally prefer alternate definition of maya as “creative power”).

Narada was a great sage who came to Vishnu. In Hinduism, there are three aspects of Brahma, or godhead: Brahma is creator, Vishnu is preserver, and Shiva is destroyer of evil. So, one day, Narada asks Vishnu, “What is secret of maya?” Vishnu promptly throws him in a pool.

As soon as he enters water, Narada becomes a princess born to a wealthy family, and as such, he experiences entire life of little girl. She ends up marrying a prince and going to live with him in his kingdom. They become fabulously wealthy, but then their kingdom is attacked and everything is destroyed. The prince is killed, and princess, as a dutiful mourning wife, throws herself on funeral pyre of her cremated husband. This is considered ultimate act of self-sacrifice. Suddenly, Narada wakes up to find that he is being pulled out of pool by Vishnu. At that moment, Vishnu asks him, “For whom are you weeping?”

This is whole concept of illusion in a nutshell. We are caught up in a story that seems so skillful and perfect that we can’t help but believe that it is real.

Young children start asking questions about things like color of sky or shapes between branches, and we direct their attention to whatever we feel is more significant. They quickly learn what is expected, what is important, what is common in our understanding of world. After a while, we each forget perspective we’d had when everything was a wonder. And before we know it, we’ve got a life full of ideas, habits, beliefs and stories that we share with countless others.

Of course, then we wake up one morning around age 40 and start questioning everything. Well, there’s no sense sticking to that time-honored schedule. You can start questioning anytime!

In fact, your best bet is to recognize right off that this whole thing is one big fantastic charade. Recognize it, laugh at it, celebrate it, and keep an eye on that cave exit. Better yet, sneak out there whenever you get a chance. You can always come back inside and hang out with your cavemates and watch those shadows on cave walls. It's safe. It'll always be there.

Prepare now to tiptoe outside. Break your chains. Shake your head enough times to loosen some of those stories that have been filling your mind for most of your life. And head for light outside cave.

What's out there? Plenty of philosophers just like you--those who have broken free and see world and reality in a whole new way. Life is rich, full, and more meaningful. Come join thinkers. There are plenty of us waiting to greet you!

In Judeo-Christian tradition, God is owner of all souls. The soul is on deposit with us. The very right to use it, for however short a period, is a divine gift. Suicide, therefore, amounts to an abuse of God's possession. Blackstone, venerable codifier of British Law, concurred. The state, according to him, has a right to prevent and to punish suicide and attempted suicide. Suicide is self-murder, he wrote, and, therefore, a grave felony. In certain paternalistic countries, this still is case.

The Right to Have One's Life Terminated

The right to have one's life terminated at will (euthanasia), is subject to social, ethical, and legal strictures. In some countries - such as Netherlands - it is legal (and socially acceptable) to have one's life terminated with help of third parties given a sufficient deterioration in quality of life and given imminence of death. One has to be of sound mind and will one's death knowingly, intentionally, repeatedly, and forcefully.

II. Issues in Calculus of Rights

The Hierarchy of Rights

The right to life supersedes - in Western moral and legal systems - all other rights. It overrules right to one's body, to comfort, to avoidance of pain, or to ownership of property. Given such lack of equivocation, amount of dilemmas and controversies surrounding right to life is, therefore, surprising.

When there is a clash between equally potent rights - for instance, conflicting rights to life of two people - we can decide among them randomly (by flipping a coin, or casting dice). Alternatively, we can add and subtract rights in a somewhat macabre arithmetic.

Thus, if continued life of an embryo or a fetus threatens mother's life - that is, assuming, controversially, that both of them have an equal right to life - we can decide to kill fetus. By adding to mother's right to life her right to her own body we outweigh fetus' right to life.

The Difference between Killing and Letting Die

Counterintuitively, there is a moral gulf between killing (taking a life) and letting die (not saving a life). The right not to be killed is undisputed. There is no right to have one's own life saved. Where there is a right - and only where there is one - there is an obligation. Thus, while there is an obligation not to kill - there is no obligation to save a life.

Killing Innocent

The life of a Victim (V) is sometimes threatened by continued existence of an innocent person (IP), a person who cannot be held guilty of V's ultimate death even though he caused it. IP is not guilty of dispatching V because he hasn't intended to kill V, nor was he aware that V will die due to his actions or continued existence.

Again, it boils down to ghastly arithmetic. We definitely should kill IP to prevent V's death if IP is going to die anyway - and shortly. The remaining life of V, if saved, should exceed remaining life of IP, if not killed. If these conditions are not met, rights of IP and V should be weighted and calculated to yield a decision (See "Abortion and Sanctity of Human Life" by Baruch A. Brody).

Utilitarianism - a form of crass moral calculus - calls for maximization of utility (life, happiness, pleasure). The lives, happiness, or pleasure of many outweigh life, happiness, or pleasure of few. If by killing IP we save lives of two or more people and there is no other way to save their lives - it is morally permissible.

But surely V has right to self defence, regardless of any moral calculus of rights? Not so. Taking another's life to save one's own is rarely justified, though such behaviour cannot be condemned. Here we have flip side of confusion we opened with: understandable and perhaps inevitable behaviour (self defence) is mistaken for a moral right.

If I were V, I would kill IP unhesitatingly. Moreover, I would have understanding and sympathy of everyone. But this does not mean that I had a right to kill IP.

Which brings us to September 11.

Collateral Damage

What should prevail: imperative to spare lives of innocent civilians - or need to safeguard lives of fighter pilots? Precision bombing puts such pilots at great risk. Avoiding this risk usually results in civilian casualties ("collateral damage").

This moral dilemma is often "solved" by applying - explicitly or implicitly - principle of "over-riding affiliation". We find two facets of this principle in Jewish sacred texts: "One is close to oneself" and "Your city's poor denizens come first (with regards to charity)".

Some moral obligations are universal - thou shalt not kill. They are related to one's position as a human being. Other moral values and obligations arise from one's affiliations. Yet, there is a hierarchy of moral values and obligations. The ones related to one's position as a human being are, actually, weakest.

They are overruled by moral values and obligations related to one's affiliations. The imperative "thou shalt not kill (another human being)" is easily over-ruled by moral obligation to kill for one's country. The imperative "thou shalt not steal" is superseded by one's moral obligation to spy for one's nation.

This leads to another startling conclusion:

There is no such thing as a self-consistent moral system. Moral values and obligations often contradict each other and almost always conflict with universal moral values and obligations.

In examples above, killing (for one's country) and stealing (for one's nation) are moral obligations. Yet, they contradict universal moral value of sanctity of life and universal moral obligation not to kill. Far from being a fundamental and immutable principle - right to life, it would seem, is merely a convenient implement in hands of society.

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 .

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com