The value of human life is the foundation of all ethical systems. All ethical principles presuppose either directly (“you shall not murder”) or indirectly (“you shall not steal”) that human life is valuable and worth protecting. This is the ultimate purpose of all laws and all government. If human life were not valuable and worth protecting, then both law and government would make little sense. The value of human life is the most basic principle of natural law, and it is the most basic value that people from across the political spectrum have in common.
Human Rights: What They Are, and What They Are Not
It is common in contemporary political discourse to speak freely of “rights” without ever defining what a right is and how to know whether something is a right or not. For example, the oft-cited Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the U.N. simply lists a very extensive catalog of “human rights” without ever discussing how these rights were chosen or what basis they have in reality. All too often, people merely assert that they have a “right” to something without any justification or explanation. More often than not, “rights” are reduced to mere government permissions, rather than inherent, inalienable ethical prerogatives. This is a tragedy, because human rights is a basic principle of all just government.
In contrast, the United States was founded on the notion of inalienable rights that have a transcendent basis in natural law. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, outlines the three main elements of human rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. Unpacking each of these rights gives us a better understanding of what human rights are and how they provide the basis for all other values in governance.
The right to life deals with humans’ physical nature, that is, the right to preserve their physical existence. The right to liberty deals with humans’ spiritual or rational nature, that is, the right to act as individuals with their own reason, their own beliefs, and their own will. The final right was originally articulated by philosopher John Locke as the right to property (“right to life, liberty, and property”). Jefferson took Locke’s original statement and generalized it to the pursuit of happiness. It needs to be clarified that “happiness” in this context is not the same thing as “whatever gives me good feelings.” Rather, in a classical sense “happiness” has to do with a “life well-lived.” In other words, all human beings have the right to pursue a good, well-lived life. It is not the same thing as saying that all humans have a right to have a good life. Jefferson is advocating for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Some people will naturally not pursue a good life, and will not receive it. The main point of the “pursuit of happiness” is that society and the government should not prevent individuals from living a full, well-lived life.
Looking at these examples of human rights, we see that they are much more concrete and specific than what contemporary discourse usually suggests. Human rights are a claim about what is right for human beings to possess. They are not a blanket statement that humans should get whatever they want, as is often assumed in popular discussions on the topic. All too often “human rights” is turned into a catch-all synonymous with “what I want” rather than a statement of what humans should expect from society. Even more concerning is the tendency among contemporary Americans to emphasize their rights, or what they deserve from society, at the expense of their own responsibilities to society. Rights always come with responsibilities, yet this dimension of rights is usually ignored nowadays.
Yet when we look at the basic human rights articulated by Thomas Jefferson, we see that they provide a basis for all the other core values that shape a healthy society, and they are the foundation upon which the Bill of Rights is based. First and foremost is the principle of the right to life, which is the foundation of all the rest.
Unfortunately, this principle has not been consistently applied in practice. While all sides of the political spectrum vehemently defend the value of human life in some spheres of life, they also flagrantly violate this principle in other areas. Both sides speak glowingly of “human rights,” yet forget the basic principle: in order to qualify for human rights, you only need to be human. Let’s see how this plays out in a couple high-profile debates in contemporary society.
Case Study: The Abortion Debate
The classic debate over the value of human life is the abortion debate. Advocates of the Right argue that the unborn must qualify for human rights since they are human (the “pro-life” position), whereas progressives argue that the life or death of the unborn should depend on the private choice of the mother (the “pro-choice” position).
With regards to the value of human life, the conservative position has a clear advantage. Scientists have long known that at the moment of fertilization a genetically distinct individual comes into existence. The unborn child is not a mere appendage of the mother’s body (as pro-choice advocates generally assume), and according to the human rights framework their life and death is thus not subject to the mother’s choice. For those who consistently want to apply the principle of human rights, opposing abortion (except in life-of-the-mother cases) and forms of birth control that destroy human life is the only viable option.
However, many pro-choice arguments are also valid from a human rights framework. During pregnancy and childbirth, the mother is subject to numerous dangers and vulnerabilities that she wouldn’t be experiencing if she weren’t pregnant. Bearing children, while becoming less risky as medical technology advances, is nonetheless a painful and dangerous experience for many women. If the government is going to consistently defend and protect the lives of all people, then it has a vested interest in protecting the life and well-being of pregnant women just as much as it has a vested interest in protecting the life and well-being of unborn children and of veterans. Possible ways this could play out on the level of policy include mandatory paid pregnancy leave for all women employees and universally funded pregnancy, childbirth, and neonatal care.
While such proposals might make some with conservative backgrounds nervous, they are a logical outgrowth of the pro-life position. If we can agree that some goods and services are universal and important enough to be funded by the government (such as roads), isn’t childbirth a much more important thing than funding roads and having public libraries? If we can agree that people who risk their lives to defend our country deserve veterans’ benefits, can’t we agree that people who risk their lives for the continued existence of our country deserve mothers’ benefits?
Case Study: Self-Defense
A similar phenomenon occurs in the debate over gun control. Contemporary conversations about self-defense and gun control are disheartening for the simple reason that neither side seems overly concerned with protecting human life itself. The Right all too often defends the right to own guns with such zeal that it seems unable to clearly articulate what sorts of firearms might be beyond what private citizens should be allowed to own.
On the other hand, the Left uses strongly pro-life rhetoric in defending various restrictions and bans on firearms without giving a clear answer on how many restrictions are too many. After all, very few people could realistically deny that guns have value as a means of self-defense against criminals—itself a very important part of protecting human life. Both sides are defined by their opposition to the other, the Right arguing that the Left merely wants to restrict Americans’ personal freedoms, while the Left argues that the Right doesn’t care enough about human life. Attempts at finding common-ground solutions with regards to issues such as gun licenses, background checks, and concealed carry permits are almost unheard-of in popular discourse on the subject.
******************************************
As illustrated by these two case studies, the problem with politics in America is not that one side cares about protecting human life and the other does not. The problem is that both sides hold to this principle inconsistently. Both sides have certain areas of interest where they strongly advocate for defending the value of human life, while they also have areas where personal desire and the right to “do as you please” trumps the right to life. But justice can only function when human life is valued consistently, and only by a consistent appeal to the value of human life can a coherent system of policies be enacted.
The only way that America can move forward is by holding to a consistent life ethic that is not merely pro-life, but whole life. Until that day comes, those who want to build a better life for themselves and for their children will have a lot of work to do.