Sovereignty vs.

the Right to Life

Photo courtesy Vikalpa-

by Sharanga Ratnayake

- on 11/18/2013 The most fundamental and im ortant right a human being has is her right to life! This cannot be "ustified through first rinci les because this is itself a first rinci le! #n common sense morality$ it is granted that a human being has a fundamental right to life$ and that this right trum s all other rights such as the right to liberty and the right to ro erty! #t is assumed that you cannot kill your neighbour merely because he%s trying to forcibly take a art of your land for his use! #t is assumed that you cannot kill him e&en if he slee s on your front yard! #f you do not acce t this$ read no further! # don%t ha&e an argument that could change your mind! There are no uni&ersally com elling arguments that could ersuade e&en aliens$ com uters and rocks! 'ut since you don%t ha&e a right to your life$ then # might as (ell kill you for some utilitarian reason$ such as using your biological organs to sa&e more than one life! )a&ing granted humans the right to life$ and ha&ing granted that it%s the most fundamental of all rights$ (e must look at the (orld in that light! Rights are constraints on the actions of moral agents! #f you ha&e a right to your ro erty$ that means # can%t take it from you by force$ e&en though # (ould like to! #f you ha&e a right to liberty$ that means # can%t shut you u "ust because # don%t like (hat you are saying! *ne may lausibly ask at this

oint +(hat about my right to not hear things # don%t like,- This is a &alid argument! 'ut it is usually understood that there is a hierarchy of rights! .ertain rights are more fundamental and im ortant than others! /o # ha&e a right to ha&e se0 (ith any (oman # like, Perha s # do! 'ut that right is trum ed by the right the (oman has not to be ra ed! Therefore # ha&e to find a (ay to ha&e se0 (ith the (oman (ithout ra ing her$ or forcing her in any (ay! Since the right to life is the most fundamental and im ortant right of all$ there%s no other right that could trum it e0ce t the right to life itself! Su ose that # in&ite some eo le to my house and tell them u front not to do certain things that # do not a ro&e (hile they are (ithin my ro erty! 1or e0am le$ # might tell them not to smoke (hile they are inside my house and threaten to kick them off my ro erty if they do so! #t is generally understood that # can do this because # ha&e a right to my ro erty and those (ho ha&e been in&ited do not! 'ut (hat if kicking them off my ro erty mean certain death, 1or e0am le$ (hat if there (as a flood outside and if # kicked a erson out$ he (ould surely die, /o # still ha&e a right to kick him out of my house, 2gain it is generally understood that # can do that no longer! This is because the right to life trum s all other rights$ including my right to my ro erty! #n this situation$ the only legitimate reason # could ha&e to kick him off my ro erty is if he osed a mortal threat to me or the others! 1or e0am le$ if he held a gun at my friend and if # (as reasonably confident that he (ould ull the trigger$ # am "ustified in kicking him out of my house e&en if that meant death for him by dro(ning in the flood! 2ll this follo(s from common sense morality! So$ although humans ha&e a fundamental right to life and that is the most im ortant of all rights$ # do not say that that right is inalienable! There are circumstances under (hich it is reasonable and moral to take that right a(ay from someone! 'ut such situations are e0tremely rare! .onsider the case (here you can sa&e fi&e eo le by killing one erson and donating his biological organs! 3ost eo le find it morally re rehensible to do so$ e&en though it may lead to better conse4uences! 5enerally the only moral reason one can ha&e to stri a erson off his right to life is if it (as a matter of self-defence! )ere too the bar is set high! 6ou cannot kill a erson sim ly because he (as going to unch you on the face! There should be a mortal danger to your life from him$ or at least a credible threat of serious$ irre&ersible in"ury! 7o( su ose there is erson 8$ his (ife erson 6$ and his neighbour erson 9! Persons 8 and 6 are li&ing in a house and it is understood that erson 9 cannot enter their house (ithout the consent of either 8 or 6 ! Su ose that 8 and 6 are not a ha y cou le$ and that 8 beats 6 e&ery e&ening! :hat should 9 do, Perha s 9 might still decide not to interfere since he has a sense of ri&acy and he thinks he should not oke his finger in other

eo le%s ri&ate li&es! 'ut (hat if one day 9 sees 8 coming home from (ork$ only this time he has a gun, 8 and 6 argue and fight as usual$ only this time 9 is reasonably sure that 8 is going to shoot 6 dead, #s it no( "ustified for 9 to inter&ene, # (ould say yes! #n fact$ # (ould go further and say 9 has a moral obligation do so! 6%s right to her life trum s all other rights such as 8%s right to his ro erty and his liberty! :hat if 9 failed to act in time$ and no( he strongly sus ects that 6 is dead$ and that she (as killed by 8, #s he no( "ustified in inter&ening, # (ould say yes! #t is not "ust about acting in a certain (ay that (ould ensure 6 (ould actually get to en"oy her right to life! #t is also about acting in a (ay that (ould ensure e&eryone else in the future (ould get to en"oy the right to life! #f 8 (as not unished because 9 did not interfere$ 8 or someone else like 8 might as (ell commit a similar crime! #t is in this light that allegations against Sri ;anka on human rights ha&e to be &ie(ed! 2s long as an actual crime (here forty thousand ci&ilians$ (ho did no bear arms$ and therefore osed no mortal threat to the li&es of army ersonnel$ took lace$ the state cannot absol&e itself$ or rid itself from allegations sim ly by a ealing to its inde endence or so&ereignty! #nde endence and so&ereignty alone cannot immuni<e you to charges of human rights &iolations$ es ecially the ones that charge you of taking eo le%s li&es! Therefore$ a second argument is needed! There are t(o salient arguments that can be resented as the second argument! *ne$ no human rights (ere &iolated$ or at least the right to life of ci&ilians = eo le (ho did not bear arms> (as not &iolated! This argument # find to be re osterous! )o(e&er$ # am not going to argue against it here! The second argument you can resent is more interesting! 6ou can argue that e&en though a crime took lace$ "ustice has been done$ or is being done internally$ (ithin the state! )ere%s (here # take issue (ith .hris 7onis$ the Sri ;ankan )igh .ommissioner to ?@ (ho recently said in a .77 inter&ie( +The ;essons ;earned in Reconciliation .ommission$ it is im ortant for you to understand$ is not based on the rinci le of uniti&e "ustice$ (here you unish eo le! #t is based on the rinci le of restorati&e "ustice$ (here each one gets an o ortunity to be able to hear (hat (ent on$ (hether the &ictims or the er etrators$ and that%s the A that%s the essence of the ;;R. and it%s the similar A a similar re ort and a similar rinci le behind the TR. of South 2frica!There is a ridiculously ob&ious roblem (ith this &ie(! The common sense &ie( of "ustice is that of a uniti&e "ustice! #f you killed my brother$ # e0 ect you to be unished! # don%t e0 ect to ha&e a chat (ith you after(ards about you killing my brother$ about ho( it affects the t(o of us$ and about (hat the t(o of us learnt from it$ and finally forgi&e you! Secondly$ according to

the common sense &ie( of "ustice$ if restorati&e "ustice to ha&e any legitimacy at all$ it should be gi&en by the &ictim of the crime$ not its er etrator! # can decide (hether to unish you or forgi&e you for killing my brother! 'ut you can%t decide for me to forgi&e you! :hat gi&es the TR. its legitimacy is the fact it (as created by those (ho (ere the &ictims of the crimes! 3andela (as clearly a &ictim of the crime! .an the same be said about 3ahinda Ra"a akse, The oint of this article is not to assert that foreign countries should interfere! The oint is$ for the foreign countries not to interfere$ the state of Sri ;anka should gi&e them a legitimate reason! 6ou cannot hide behind that conce ts that doesn%t make any sense!