Is the right to self defense an inherent right?

I'm inclined to believe that because the urge to defend oneself is so very hardwired in our nature as human beings, that it should be considered an inherent right to do so.

On the argument that rights are human constructs and are therefore not real (I would like to argue for in the case of self defense) that I am very much real and that my constructs the same. and the result of defending my self produce real results as well.

 

The definitions are in the dictionary.

Why didn't you look it up before posting this?

 

The victim was chasing the aggressor?

What if Zimmerman started the fight, He was the one following Martin, Martin was trying to get away, say he pushed Martin, tried to restrain him, Martin fought back, if Martin sees the gun, and struggles with Zimmerman, and ends up shooting Zimmerman, are you going to be all "Self Defense"?

 

You're completely uninformed about the evidence in the case, aren't you? The evidence clearly showed that Zimmerman had lost track of Martin's whereabouts for four full minutes. Martin didn't use those four minutes to go home, He used the time to wait for Zimmerman, and to confront and attack him. Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman. Get yourself informed before you make more baseless claims.

 

Martin would have testified that Zimmerman attacked him, there would be no evidence to the contrary, why wouldn't a self defense defense have worked for Martin?

 

In regards to the OP, I respond no - I don't think so - because rights are mere fabrications of the mind. I think rights are very important and that the prime role of a good government should be to enforce those rights the People desire but have to insist on building an understanding of politics and morality on foundations of human thought and abilities - not on divine mandates, faith in the supernatural, or rationalizations that conflate intense feelings with knowledge of the facts of nature. Setting this objection aside, I reckon people should be allowed to use non-lethal force to ward off attackers, and that they should be allowed to kill an assailant when their own life or that of another person is in grave and imminent danger and no opportunities are available by which to neutralize the offender's threat rather than cheat them of their life.

 

Okay... so it's clear you believe all of your rights come from government and others.

(Personally, I don't - but I will respect your belief)

I have a question though:

If a dog is attacked by another dog... what gives the dog being attacked the right to defend itself?

If another dog is after it's puppies? What would give it the right to protect its young?

 

Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.

 

You bet.

 

And also myself. I decide which rights I should have but in practice usually have to settle for those created by others as part of the social contract. The trade-off seems to be more positive than not in the U.S., fortunately.

Rights do not enter into the equation at all unless people want to meddle in the conflict. If a dog is attacked by another dog there is nothing moral or immoral about it - the action is just cause and effect. Likewise for the defending dog's retaliation. I could subjectively decree the defender's actions righteous and demand that the defending dog have a right not to be subjected to harm. Depending on the defending dog's mental faculties, it too may consider its actions justified above and beyond having an intuitive response compelling it to defend. Having that impulse does not imply that a higher code of natural law exists however. Rather, it appears to reflect a combination of the animal's upbringing and genetic predispositions. A similar consideration applied to human beings makes me wonder whether or not we have free will.

 

This is key.

What gives you the right to decide for yourself - what your rights are - or should be?

See above...

If you have no inherent rights.... what then gives you the right to make those decisions?

It's not about morals or meddling.

Think.

If MY dog attacks YOUR dog.... and your dog injures mine in the fight.

Would I have grounds (or a case against you)... by claiming that YOUR dog did not have a RIGHT to defend itself against mine?

 

My justification is I am an individual separate from others, and along with others have an interest in developing, having experiences, and being immersed in environs conducive to achieving long-term happiness via satisfying a variety of human needs, with some needs hardwired into us genetically and others arising as products of our respective paths in life and the cultural influences to which we are subjected. Though I have no innate right to have my own opinion, I do so because I feel morally justified.

To the best of my limited, uncertain knowledge I appear to possess moral dispositions toward caring for others and responding negatively to injustices that are stronger than are possessed by many other people. The nature vs. nurture debate is tricky to tackle and I don't want to decisively pick either side but on the nature side it is quite possible that my genes do predispose me to adamantly embrace the aforementioned moral values as a coincidental side-effect of traits that emerged courtesy of evolution many thousands of years ago - traits which may have originally been conducive to success because they compelled my ancestors to nurture their young, be moved to compassion for others in their families, bands, etc. and respond negatively and with defiance toward abusive individuals who threaten to harmfully subvert the interests of others to their own, undercutting the benefits of collaboratively living and working in groups.

You, many others, and even I might derive some rights from such predispositions - yes - but having them in our genetic code would not imply a "higher power" or universal order of sorts actually intends for us to be good, evil, define those things in a particular way, or search for some kind of intelligent design in our adaptations. To the contrary, I reckon the mutations that made people less likely to die before procreating generally survived to get passed on but have no innate purpose - they are just happy accidents of chemistry we may or may not be better off living with today. Or am I still missing the point? I am a little confused by what exactly you are asking me to explain.

That depends entirely on how others in society have come to perceive reality and matters of moral controversy. You could claim and build up an argument in the defense of my dog not having been justified in defending itself against yours with violence. Likewise, I could claim my dog was justified in defending itself against yours. Both of us would have reasons to be biased in our positions on the issue, and both of us would likely be inclined to rationalize a case that does not put our own respective dog in the wrong. Personally, I would project my own value sets onto conflicts of interest involving other lifeforms, considering that a fair, just way to go about it even though I've no way to establish as fact that my attitude is inherently superior to that of anybody else.

 

If you have no inherent rights.... what then gives you the right to make those decisions?[/quote]

Logically, since you have no inherent right to your opinion.

I certainly don't have an inherent obligation to YOU - to consider your opinion.

Do I?

And with that - the conversation ends.

 

I would have loved watching Martin testify!! He'd say on direct questioning that Zimmerman attacked him. As a defense attorney, I'd ask on cross-examination how Zimmerman approached and attacked him. Martin would say that Zimmerman stalked him and jumped him. I'd remind Martin that he was out of Zimmerman's sight for 4 full minutes. "If you felt you were being stalked and were in danger, Mr. Martin, why didn't you go home? You had plenty of time to go home! Your story doesn't sound like Zimmerman stalked you, but that you ambushed him! If you ambush someone, Mr. Martin, don't tell us you were defending yourself!" Martin would go to jail, and the leftist demagogues would be crying "Injustice"!!!!

 

Really, you'd ask that as a defense attorney, I think you just defined "unclear on the concept"

 

You made the above comment, which is meaningless on its face. If you're going to say that I'm "unclear on the concept", explain what you believe the concept is!! We're talking about "self defense" here. Provide the argument to support your claim, or don't make the claim!

 

You said as a defense attorney, you would shred Trayvon Martin's story if during the struggle, Trayvon had grabbed Zimmerman's gun and killed Zimmerman.
So in this case Trayvon would be on trial for the murder of Zimmerman, and you as a defense attorney (i.e. Trayvon Martin's Attorney) would shred his story.
I suggested you were unclear on the concept, meaning the concept of what a defense attorney does....

 

Replace the word "defense" with "prosecuting", and my cross examination would be the same. Martin 's cell phone record and Zimmerman's cell calls clearly show that Martin could have easily avoided contact. Zimmerman had no clue where Martin was until Martin confronted him. When cross examining Martin, I'd ask him this: "If you're claiming 'self-defense', Mr. Martin, how do you explain the fact that YOU were on top of the victim, and the bullet was found embedded in the ground beneath the victim"? "WHY didn't you get off of the victim BEFORE he had to pull his gun to protect himself?" If Martin had gone home, or had simply confronted Zimmerman verbally only, this whole case would never had happened!! Instead, Martin had to teach the "creepy ass cracker" that no white man had a right to question what he was doing. Martin was the racist in the case, not Zimmerman. Luckily this time, the real racist paid the price for his violent hatred!

 

So if Martin and Zimmerman had got into the brawl, and Martin testifies that Zimmerman started it, they end up on the ground, Martin sees Zimmerman go for the gun, he grabs it and fires.

You'd see that as murder, but when Martin gets shot by Zimmerman it's self defense.

Same story, shoe's on the other, different result....

 

You can’t be serious? It's not the same story by any means!

Martin could have said anything he wanted at the hypothetical trial. Nonetheless, the EVIDENCE in the case would have been the same. The evidence supported a Martin ambush and attack of Zimmerman. The evidence supported that Zimmerman was on the bottom, and that Martin was beating him. Had Martin taken the gun and shot Zimmerman instead of backing off, Martin would be a murderer!

Your argument doesn’t hold water. Using your “logic”, had a man attempted to rape a woman, and had the woman pulled a gun which the rapist then took from her and shot her dead, the rapist should be innocent as long as he claimed the woman attacked him?? The evidence in this case is clear, and not all of the evidence was allowed to be admitted. Videos in Martin’s possession were of other beat-downs and violence. That was something he enjoyed. Martin had stolen property in his school locker, so he obviously wasn’t opposed to theft. The physical evidence in the case, as well as the evidence of Zimmerman’s and Martin’s personal character confirms Zimmerman’s innocence! In actuality and in your hypothetical case, Martin was the violent criminal!!!!

 

Martin was stalked by Zimmerman, and ended up dead.
Zimmerman beat the legal system, because there wasn't enough evidence to convict, not because there was evidence of innocence.

Zimmerman's life will be miserable, he'll be punished by society and shunned by decent people.

 

The evidence of Zimmerman's innocence and Martin's guilt was overwhelming. You're either unaware of the complete evidence, you're aware of it but are ignoring it, or you're too bigoted or stupid to comprehend its significance. Anyone seeking to blame an innocent man and punish and shun him for life is....sick!

 

The right to self defense is an inalienable Right given man by God, no one may to abolish it.

 

Of course you would defend yourself and even kill another human if you would get attacked by him. But if that is right or not, and thereby you got a right to do so, can only be answered by humans. I definitely would say, you got such a right. And many, many others would do the same. Also, if you live in a western society, you actually got an inherent right to live, which is - as soon as you´re born- given to you by the different sources of law - either statutory law or from judicial precedents. But I think this is not the question you´re asking. So just imagine, you were the only human left on earth. And a wild animal is coming towards you and wanting to kill you. Who then gives you the right to life or defend yourself against that? Obviously you would defend yourself because your natural instincts are telling you to do so, but this doesn´t give you a corresponding right automatically.

 

I'm curious.

Do you know (or can you appreciate) the differences between the birth of something - in the aspects of 'origin, inception or beginning' as opposed to 'emergence from the womb?' (parturition?)

Which meaning of the word "birth" do you think is most applicable to describe the moment a creature's LIFE begins?

It's not a "who" that gives me those rights. (those rights don't come from other people)

The question (in my view) is "WHAT gives me the right to my life and my right to defend it?"

And the answer to that question is 'ownership.'

Instinctively first and consciously second, I'm going to defend that which is mine.

Even if I'm the last and only person who can still 'put it into words.'

It's the ownership that secures the right.

Or, if you don't like 'ownership', you can use "intrinsic nature" or 'association.'

Your life naturally belongs to you, mine belongs to me.

Everything else (in the way of rights) stems from that.