Reference no: EM133091377

Brock argues that while innocent persons generally do have a right against being killed, this is a right that a person can voluntarily waive. But Callahan argues that this is not possible. Certain rights, Callahan argues, cannot be waived under any circumstance. He thinks that one's right to liberty and one's right to life are of this kind. Thus, one cannot enslave oneself to another (in the sense of giving up all claim to freedom in perpetuity, even if one changes one's mind later). And one cannot (morally) ask another person to cause one's death.

Think about the many kinds of rights people are said to have and to exercise daily against each other. Admittedly, this is an area where the distinctions between morality, custom, and law can be obscure. For instance, some deeply cherished rights are protected by law, although they are nearly as often characterized as moral rights that should be guaranteed by law. Reflect, too, on the analysis Thomson offered of the problems with the concept "a right to life."

Who is correct, Brock or Callahan?

Articles: Dan Brock (1992). Voluntary Active Euthanasia.

Daniel Callahan (1992). When Self-Determination Runs Amok