Stranger still, she seemed to have forgotten all about naptime. My brother and I sat on couch quietly, hoping that if we didn’t draw attention to ourselves she wouldn’t put us to bed. We needn’t have worried—Mom was completely caught up in what was on television.

From couch, we watched TV as a scene was played over and over…a man in a car with his wife, and then sudden pandemonium. I couldn’t make much sense of it. When man on TV was talking, there was a big photo of man in car behind him. In fact, whenever anyone was talking, there was that same photo of man with thick hair and toothy smile. My mother kept ironing, steam rising from my father’s shirts as she said, over and over, “Oh, God….oh, my GOD!”

And that is how, for next ten years of my life, I had an image of God as John F. Kennedy in a long white robe. Even when I realized what I was picturing, and remembered why I had that association, I couldn’t shake image. Even now, forty years later, I still find that mental picture popping up when I least expect it!

It’s fascinating to look at how we learn and what our minds store as knowledge. Do you have a JFK story? We all have stories in our heads of way things happened or how details fit together. The interesting thing is that they are, indeed, simply stories.

Fortunately, there’s nothing harmful about my childhood image of God. I didn’t start worshipping Kennedy family or anything like that. The entire fields of psychology and psychiatry are based on our early associations and stories we tell ourselves about way things are.

And what stories! We create our own histories in our heads, and sometimes it takes a great deal of counseling (or our own application of philosophy) to remodel our stories so that they help us see world in a more realistic way.

Plato had an interesting way of thinking about false beliefs and illusions. He developed an elaborate image of a cave in which all people are chained to floor and watching shadows on wall. He described a man who, escaping his chains, becomes first to venture outside cave. He comes to realize that shadows cast upon cave walls from light of fire bear little resemblance to outside world. He sees for first time that cave life is an illusion, and he races back to free his cavemates and show them real world.

Plato goes on to say that this is exactly what a philosopher does. When he tells his cavemates his strange tale, he is cheered by some and rejected by others. Some cave folks are just fine in that cave, thank you very much. They don’t need any other reality. Others are intrigued but hesitant, breaking free of their chains and stepping cautiously into sunlight.

The philosopher’s role is to continue in difficult but necessary work of freeing fellow captives and introducing them to a brighter world. His task is to help us wake up and recognize limitations we’ve constructed for ourselves.

This leads to a more general quandary. To what extent can one use other people's bodies, their property, their time, their resources and to deprive them of pleasure, comfort, material possessions, income, or any other thing - in order to maintain one's life?

Even if it were possible in reality, it is indefensible to maintain that I have a right to sustain, improve, or prolong my life at another's expense. I cannot demand - though I can morally expect - even a trivial and minimal sacrifice from another in order to prolong my life. I have no right to do so.

Of course, existence of an implicit, let alone explicit, contract between myself and another party would change picture. The right to demand sacrifices commensurate with provisions of contract would then crystallize and create corresponding duties and obligations.

No embryo has a right to sustain its life, maintain, or prolong it at its mother's expense. This is true regardless of how insignificant sacrifice required of her is.

Yet, by knowingly and intentionally conceiving embryo, mother can be said to have signed a contract with it. The contract causes right of embryo to demand such sacrifices from his mother to crystallize. It also creates corresponding duties and obligations of mother towards her embryo.

We often find ourselves in a situation where we do not have a given right against other individuals - but we do possess this very same right against society. Society owes us what no constituent-individual does.

Thus, we all have a right to sustain our lives, maintain, prolong, or even improve them at society's expense - no matter how major and significant resources required. Public hospitals, state pension schemes, and police forces may be needed in order to fulfill society's obligations to prolong, maintain, and improve our lives - but fulfill them it must.

Still, each one of us can sign a contract with society - implicitly or explicitly - and abrogate this right. One can volunteer to join army. Such an act constitutes a contract in which individual assumes duty or obligation to give up his or her life.

The Right not to be Killed

It is commonly agreed that every person has right not to be killed unjustly. Admittedly, what is just and what is unjust is determined by an ethical calculus or a social contract - both constantly in flux.

Still, even if we assume an Archimedean immutable point of moral reference - does A's right not to be killed mean that third parties are to refrain from enforcing rights of other people against A? What if only way to right wrongs committed by A against others - was to kill A? The moral obligation to right wrongs is about restoring rights of wronged.

If continued existence of A is predicated on repeated and continuous violation of rights of others - and these other people object to it - then A must be killed if that is only way to right wrong and re-assert rights of A's victims.

The Right to have One's Life Saved

There is no such right because there is no moral obligation or duty to save a life. That people believe otherwise demonstrates muddle between morally commendable, desirable, and decent ("ought", "should") and morally obligatory, result of other people's rights ("must"). In some countries, obligation to save a life is codified in law of land. But legal rights and obligations do not always correspond to moral rights and obligations, or give rise to them.

The Right to Save One's Own Life

One has a right to save one's life by exercising self-defence or otherwise, by taking certain actions or by avoiding them. Judaism - as well as other religious, moral, and legal systems - accept that one has right to kill a pursuer who knowingly and intentionally is bent on taking one's life. Hunting down Osama bin-Laden in wilds of Afghanistan is, therefore, morally acceptable (though not morally mandatory).

But does one have right to kill an innocent person who unknowingly and unintentionally threatens to take one's life? An embryo sometimes threatens life of mother. Does she have a right to take its life? What about an unwitting carrier of Ebola virus - do we have a right to terminate her life? For that matter, do we have a right to terminate her life even if there is nothing she could have done about it had she known about her condition?

The Right to Terminate One's Life

There are many ways to terminate one's life: self sacrifice, avoidable martyrdom, engaging in life risking activities, refusal to prolong one's life through medical treatment, euthanasia, overdosing and self inflicted death that is result of coercion. Like suicide, in all these - bar last - a foreknowledge of risk of death is present coupled with its acceptance. Does one have a right to take one's life?

The answer is: it depends. Certain cultures and societies encourage suicide. Both Japanese kamikaze and Jewish martyrs were extolled for their suicidal actions. Certain professions are knowingly life-threatening - soldiers, firemen, policemen. Certain industries - like manufacture of armaments, cigarettes, and alcohol - boost overall mortality rates.

In general, suicide is commended when it serves social ends, enhances cohesion of group, upholds its values, multiplies its wealth, or defends it from external and internal threats. Social structures and human collectives - empires, countries, firms, bands, institutions - often commit suicide. This is considered to be a healthy process.