Humans Have an Inalienable Right to Death

On the subject of my opponent’s qualms with the definition of a human right: My driving example merely represents the fallacy of using your own words: “…the purpose of them are to further our own survival in nature…” This would mean that no one has a right to drink alcohol, drive, or even walk outside because all of these are dangerous and bring potential harm towards our survival. I was merely pointing out that it is more logical to use motivations as a pillar for our rights. My opponent claims that I have neglected to address an argument of his, the one where he/she states that we can’t judge the individual’s rights based on his/her motivations because they are not the same as humanity’s motivations. What exactly is humanity? My opponent fails to provide any substance behind his/her axioms, almost as if he were reciting something that he read elsewhere. Want some evidence? She/he goes onto to claim that he/she has merit behind what he/she says because it has been said before. That’s like saying ‘because my mother told me so’. My opponent cannot argue from his/her own power of reasoning and is thus relying on the opinion of others as “merit”. For example, he/she introduces someone else’s book and claim that society cannot exist unless we assign obligations to one another. I believe in only one obligation—to never interfere with one person’s motivations/freedom to act upon those motivations. This does not mean you can physically injure someone simply because you want to do it, since you would be interfering with their personal motivations. I never, not even for an instant or a jiffy, ignored the rest of his example. That suicide brings harm to those around the individual is news to no one. Let us entertain the rest of my opponent’s argument. He/she claims that a motivation of a person is the pursuit of happiness, which is indeed the founding basis for all our motivations. But there is a difference here, and a rather important one. The husband has not acted towards his wife’s motivations—they are simply collateral damage. It is absolutely true that responsibility only exists for what you believe to be worth accountability. If a man chooses to remove himself from the responsibilities of raising a family then he is free to do so. In no way, shape or form do I think he should, but nor do I believe that we should punish an individual for choosing death as his banner of freedom. My opponent makes a grand leap from our responsibilities to our family to our responsibilities to our governments. Then he/she seemingly moves on from this claim without really adding anything else and claims that life is required to have humanity. Of course it is required. But would you call a dog a human? According to my opponent, all you need is life. However, the human condition is a far more complex and enlightening phenomena. We are not simply mortal; we are also gods in our way. We create our own world and we define what is most important to us, but only when we have the motivations to do so. My opponent seeks to kill the faculty of motivation while I argue that it be upheld as the standard for humanity. For some reason that I’ve yet to determine, my opponent also made mention of the founding fathers. I don’t see any merit in doing so. Again, it’s like saying that ‘because so-and-so said this, it’s true’. It’s a horrendous means of arguing and I would hope that my audience logically agrees.