4 ms·

That logic doesn't follow. There are plenty of things that, in some cases, lack of them causes death; but are not human rights. There are people that cannot sur

That logic doesn't follow. There are plenty of things that, in some cases, lack of them causes death; but are not human rights. There are people that cannot survive without a liver transplant; not everyone gets a liver transplant; some people die because they cannot get a liver transplant. A live transplant is not a basic human right. There are many things that, as a society, we should do our best to make sure everyone has access to; housing, food, medical care, etc. The more people that have access to them, the better off we, as a society, are. Whether or not those things are a "basic human right" is debatable; but they fact that you need them to survive doesn't define them as such.

mxkopy 4y ago
This is a normative fallacy. If people die because they didn't get healthcare, that doesn't mean they didn't deserve healthcare. I'd argue that everyone who needs a liver (which is not the same as a liver transplant) has the right to one. > but they fact that you need them to survive doesn't define them as such Isn't that basically saying that surviving needn't be in a definition of 'human right'?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  > Isn't that basically saying that surviving needn't be in a definition of 'human right'? Yes, because "surviving" isn't a human right. It's something we, as a society, should do our best to make sure everyone is able to do, but that's not the same as saying it's a human right. If it was, then "not having a heart attack" would be a human right, which is clearly ridiculous.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    Not so clear to me. If some company flooded a river with heart attack inducing chemicals, would you say that's fine because not having heart attacks isn't a human right? I'll put it to you like this. If you believe there is a human right, then someone can't pursue it if they're dead. So if, in order to pursue that right, they need to pursue being alive, the pursuit of being alive falls within that right, no?

mxkopy 4y ago

This is a normative fallacy. If people die because they didn't get healthcare, that doesn't mean they didn't deserve healthcare. I'd argue that everyone who needs a liver (which is not the same as a liver transplant) has the right to one. > but they fact that you need them to survive doesn't define them as such Isn't that basically saying that surviving needn't be in a definition of 'human right'?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RHSeeger 4y ago
> Isn't that basically saying that surviving needn't be in a definition of 'human right'? Yes, because "surviving" isn't a human right. It's something we, as a society, should do our best to make sure everyone is able to do, but that's not the same as saying it's a human right. If it was, then "not having a heart attack" would be a human right, which is clearly ridiculous.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  Not so clear to me. If some company flooded a river with heart attack inducing chemicals, would you say that's fine because not having heart attacks isn't a human right? I'll put it to you like this. If you believe there is a human right, then someone can't pursue it if they're dead. So if, in order to pursue that right, they need to pursue being alive, the pursuit of being alive falls within that right, no?