Life is not an inalienable right

Society was set up for one purpose. To protect people's natural rights guaranteed to them by natural law in that people have the right to life, liberty, and personal economic security. Every person is part of society, whether they want to believe it or not. According to an essay titled "Morals and Criminal Law, "Society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas on politics morals and ethics, no society can exist." Furthermore, R.M. Dworkin wrote in his book The Philosophy of Law, "society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed. the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price." If you were to even analyze basically what laws do you will see a pattern, they adhere to natural law. Just look at the United States, it is founded upon the basic premise that everybody has the inalienable right to live. And for more specific examples, look at laws, murder is morally wrong, society has outlawed murder. Theft is morally wrong, society has outlawed theft. Rape is morally wrong, society has outlawed rape. Assault is morally wrong, society has outlawed assault. The list goes on and on. There is a common morality in society. People are members of society. Therefore, there is a common morality among people. It is morally wrong to take a life. According to John Locke, the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. Individuals therefore, have an unalienable right to life because they must be alive in order to preserve mankind. Furthermore, according to Francis Hutcheson, all men are born morally equal to one another, "nature makes none masters, none slaves." Therefore, it cannot be morally acceptable to kill another person because in doing so you are proclaiming that you are dominant over another because by taking that life, you are saying that you are above natural law and therefore, saying you are not equal to another. I interpret the right to life to mean the right to not be killed. Everyone has the right to not be killed. This is a universal right. And if my opponent chooses to refute this fact then they are also refuting the fact they have the right to not be killed and can be killed by anyone at anytime. Since the right to not be killed is a universal right, and my opponent values their own life, then everybody has this right to not be killed. Since this is true and everybody has the right to not be killed. Everyone has the right to life. If everyone has the right to life then a person cannot morally take this right away. Now I will go through each story my opponent presented one by one. Carol Gerr As a member of society, Carol Gerr has the responsibility to follow societies laws. Laws, as I explained above, are based on morality. Therefore, her actions were not moral because they break the laws set by society. Furthermore, the use of the words "believe that it was morally acceptable" does not mean it was. Just because one person believes something right does not make it right. The dictator The purpose of government is to secure and protect the inalienable natural rights of the people but, if a government persecutes its people with a long train of abuses over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system. The reason people are uprising are because the government is becoming abusive and therefore, they have to right to overthrow the government. Therefore, the dictator does not have the moral right to resist this overturning. Furthermore, how is attacking those who pose no physical threat to you justifiable? Would that not just be making a martyr out of those 18 people and strengthening the resolve of those against you, giving more incentive to overthrow that government? Now mental illness. You have stated that "morals [are] based on their perception of what is "right" and what is "wrong" in the world around us." This is true because the government is tasked with creating morale laws that separate right and wrong. Mental illness is not physical because it affects your psyche which is not a physical thing. Therefore, this is irrelevant. But, nevertheless, here is the main problem with using the mentally ill as an example. People who are psychopaths and sociopaths, have no perception between right and wrong because they do not feel any emotion. They cannot perceive that life is precious because they do not know what it means to love life; they cannot fee love. For people with mental illnesses, such as the ones you presented, there is nothing separating what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong are indistinguishable from one another. Therefore, they cannot judge their own morale beliefs because they cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Furthermore, let me bring you back to the definition provided of inalienable rights "A right which according to natural law cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred." Sacrificing yourself is not breaking with the central premise of what an inalienable right is. It has to be morally correct for someone to kill you for life to not be inalienable. My opponent has yet to prove life is alienable.