The Right to Life is a Negative Right

Let us look back at the definition my opponent has put forth: "The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being."Of course, the right to life is a moral principle, but let us not forget that it is not the moral principle. As we will see, the opponent's counter-examples simply portray scenarios that rest outside of the moral framework of the "right to life." What my opponent describes is a positive right to have one's life sustained, not a negative right to not be killed. NewbornsHere, my opponent presents the case of the baby who depends on his/her caretakers to survive. According to the definition presented, the right to life is a right to not be killed. This moral principle forbids action--particularly actions that terminate the baby's life, such as being choked to death by a parent or guardian. Now, if the baby dies due to malnutrition, as a result of the parents' choosing not to adequately feed him/her, then the parents have not killed the baby; they have neglected the baby and let it die. (As an aside, this is why the parents in this situation would not be charged with murder--or even manslaughter--under the law. Rather, they would be charged with criminal negligence. The moral difference between killing and letting one die is embedded in the law.) So, do I think it is moral for a parent to neglect a child and let him/her die? No. But not on the basis of the moral principle of "right to life," as defined by my opponent. I would appeal to a principle outside the scope of the "right to life" in order to make this case... because the right to life applies to killing, not letting one die. I will not fall for the false trichotomy that my opponent presents, due to the clear issue of scope that I have described. Food MarketsPrice rises in the food market, when caused by pure issues of supply and demand, do not "kill." A group of people who engage in free exchange are not killing those who are left out because their past and/or current and/or potential labor output lacks value. I disagree that redistribution is moral, as my opponent proposes, but I do not really need to go down that route. My opponent is concluding here that "inaction is immoral," so he is committing the same fallacy that he used in the prior case he makes. The "right to life," based on my opponent's definition is a right to not be killed. It is a protection from action. Whether or not inaction is moral is irrelevant... Killing is action. Car AccidentWhile I do not believe that the doctor's decision is moral, I would not appeal to the "right to life"--as defined by my opponent--in order to make this case. The right to life is a right to not be killed. Does my opponent seriously think that the doctor is KILLING the victim by not acting? Does my opponent know what "killing" is, as opposed to negligence--or letting one die? So far, he has conflated the two concepts, and each of his cases have fallen short because of it. Conclusion Whether or not inaction is immoral/injustice or not, it cannot be subjected to the principle of "right to life" that my opponent has defined. My opponent has completely overlooked the marked difference between an act of killing (which is a necessary component to a "right-to-life" scenario) and letting one die through negligence. The right to life is a right to not be killed--and since killing is a positive action, the right to life is a negative right. Thank you.