Sometimes it looks hopeless. II. Issues in Calculus of Rights

IIA. The Hierarchy of Rights

All human cultures have hierarchies of rights. These hierarchies reflect cultural mores and lores and there cannot, therefore, be a universal, or eternal hierarchy.

In Western moral systems, Right to Life supersedes all other rights (including right to one's body, to comfort, to avoidance of pain, to property, etc.).

Yet, this hierarchical arrangement does not help us to resolve cases in which there is a clash of EQUAL rights (for instance, conflicting rights to life of two people). One way to decide among equally potent claims is randomly (by flipping a coin, or casting dice). Alternatively, we could add and subtract rights in a somewhat macabre arithmetic. If a mother's life is endangered by continued existence of a fetus and assuming both of them have a right to life we can decide to kill fetus by adding to mother's right to life her right to her own body and thus outweighing fetus' right to life.

IIB. The Difference between Killing and Letting Die

There is an assumed difference between killing (taking life) and letting die (not saving a life). This is supported by IE above. While there is a right not to be killed - there is no right to have one's own life saved. Thus, while there is an obligation not to kill - there is no obligation to save a life.

IIC. Killing Innocent

Often continued existence of an innocent person (IP) threatens to take life of a victim (V). By "innocent" we mean "not guilty" - not responsible for killing V, not intending to kill V, and not knowing that V will be killed due to IP's actions or continued existence.

It is simple to decide to kill IP to save V if IP is going to die anyway shortly, and remaining life of V, if saved, will be much longer than remaining life of IP, if not killed. All other variants require a calculus of hierarchically weighted rights. (See "Abortion and Sanctity of Human Life" by Baruch A. Brody).

One form of calculus is utilitarian theory. It calls for maximization of utility (life, happiness, pleasure). In other words, life, happiness, or pleasure of many outweigh life, happiness, or pleasure of few. It is morally permissible to kill IP if lives of two or more people will be saved as a result and there is no other way to save their lives. Despite strong philosophical objections to some of premises of utilitarian theory - I agree with its practical prescriptions.

In this context - dilemma of killing innocent - one can also call upon right to self defence. Does V have a right to kill IP regardless of any moral calculus of rights? Probably not. One is rarely justified in taking another's life to save one's own. But such behaviour cannot be condemned. Here we have flip side of confusion - understandable and perhaps inevitable behaviour (self defence) is mistaken for a MORAL RIGHT. That most V's would kill IP and that we would all sympathize with V and understand its behaviour does not mean that V had a RIGHT to kill IP. V may have had a right to kill IP - but this right is not automatic, nor is it all-encompassing.

But is Egg - Alive?

This question is NOT equivalent to ancient quandary of "when does life begin". Life crystallizes, at earliest, when an egg and a sperm unite (i.e., at moment of fertilization). Life is not a potential - it is a process triggered by an event. An unfertilized egg is neither a process - nor an event. It does not even possess potential to become alive unless and until it merges with a sperm. Should such merger not occur - it will never develop life.

The potential to become X is not ontological equivalent of actually being X, nor does it spawn moral and ethical rights and obligations pertaining to X. The transition from potential to being is not trivial, nor is it automatic, or inevitable, or independent of context. Atoms of various elements have potential to become an egg (or, for that matter, a human being) - yet no one would claim that they ARE an egg (or a human being), or that they should be treated as one (i.e., with same rights and obligations).

Moreover, it is donor nucleus embedded in egg that endows it with life - life of cloned baby. Yet, nucleus is usually extracted from a muscle or skin. Should we treat a muscle or a skin cell with same reverence critics of cloning wish to accord an unfertilized egg?

Is This Main Concern?

The main concern is that cloning - even therapeutic kind - will produce piles of embryos. Many of them - close to 95% with current biotechnology - will die. Others can be surreptitiously and illegally implanted in wombs of "surrogate mothers".

It is patently immoral, goes precautionary argument, to kill so many embryos. Cloning is such a novel technique that its success rate is still unacceptably low. There are alternative ways to harvest stem cells - less costly in terms of human life. If we accept that life begins at moment of fertilization, this argument is valid. But it also implies that - once cloning becomes safer and scientists more adept - cloning itself should be permitted.

Tale #1: “I’ll eat last few cookies in this package today so I won’t be tempted to eat them tomorrow when I start my diet.” Do you ever find yourself ready to start a diet “tomorrow” but instead of throwing out all your junk food, you decide to eat some of that night so you won’t be tempted to eat it while you are “on diet?”

Calories are calories and it doesn’t matter whether you eat them today or tomorrow…you are still eating them! By throwing out secret stash of cookies behind food processor you are carrying out a much better and more empowering act. Throwing out food signals to your brain that you are getting serious about your health and well being.

Don’t just limit your home to this cleansing process, remove access to all foods. What’s in your glove compartment? What about desk drawers of your office? Replace these secret stashes with non-perishable healthy snacks such as protein bars.

Tale #2 “But if I pay for it, I have to eat it…” This tale is best told in restaurants where we are served three to four times recommended serving size. Too many times we partake in soup, salad, bread and appetizer and we are full before our dinner arrives; but we make a valiant attempt to eat as much of our dinner as we can hold. Why? Because we’ve paid for it!!

Do you feel as though you don’t get your money’s worth from a restaurant unless you’ve cleaned your plate? How many leftovers have you diligently packed up and brought home from a restaurant only to throw them out two weeks later? It is seemingly unacceptable to leave food on table for wait staff to throw out, but it IS acceptable to use a non-biodegradable Styrofoam container and store this food in our refrigerator until “It’s Okay to Throw it Out” stamp can be placed on food. Perhaps we feel that if food rots in our own refrigerator, we don’t have to feel guilty because we’ve at least given ourselves opportunity to eat food and we’ve surrounded food with loved ones during its final days.

If you apply this, “I have to eat it because I’ve paid for it,” logic to restaurants, you must also apply it to many science experiments gone awry in your crisper. How many fruits and vegetables have you purchased with best intentions only to throw them out weeks later after they’ve begun to take on a life of their own? You paid for those vegetables, but we have no problem letting them rot in our refrigerators. The logic doesn’t make much sense now, does it?

Tale #3: “Five minutes of exercise won’t do me any good, so why should I bother?” I’ve spent years reading books and magazine articles on fitness and nutrition. I’m fascinated by various fads and trends that come and go. Every year there is a new diet or exercise trend; some hold value and some are simply ridiculous, but occasionally I hear something that perturbs me. There seem to be two different exercise camps, those who believe that 6-8 minutes a day can bridge gap to health and those who tell you not to bother working out if you are only going to work out for five minutes.

I believe that five minutes can make all difference in your exercise routine and I’m living proof. I can recall countless exercise sessions where I bartered with myself, “Just exercise for five minutes and then you can quit.” Time and time again I found that once I got off couch, put on my workout clothes and climbed on treadmill, I did not stop after five minutes, but continued for full workout. Sometimes all motivation we need to exercise can be found in simply beginning to exercise. There were also days that I quit after only five minutes, but I did so with no regret.

Our heart is most important muscle in our entire body and it needs exercise just like rest of us. Instead of complaining about how much you don’t want to exercise, try being grateful that your body will still move in ways you need it to! When I weighed over 300 pounds I could not walk around block…(and it was a small block!) I could only muster five minutes of energy at one time before I was completely out of breath and sweating. I did what I could and I built upon my successes. Five minutes can make all difference in a workout!

Tale #4: “I should eat this because there are starving children…somewhere” By average, we are most wasteful country in free world. According to recent studies, United States is most wasteful country on planet creating 210 million tons of municipal waste every year. I doubt a half eaten hamburger and two bites of cheesecake are going to change this.

If you feel truly feel guilt over starving children, adopt one. There are many, reputable organizations where you can send a few dollars a month and help someone less fortunate. Closer to home you can volunteer at a local food bank or donate canned goods to a local shelter. Turn this tale into a helping hand for someone whose problems are much larger than yours.