Shelly, marking the end of his poem, The Triumph of Life raises the age old question, “Then, what is life?…” Similar overtones resonate in Shakespeare’s As You Like It as despondent Jacques delivers these lines in a soliloquy viewing life of man in seven stages laid between birth and death. The term “life” carries a history where like-minded philosophers and biologists have struggled to advance a definition on an almost incomprehensible and irreducible notion as life. Some of them have even rejected the idea of there being a definition at all.
Biology defines life by placing a distinction between animate and inanimate objects. Every creature with ability to breathe literally holds life within it. However, that is not all. The conception of life in terms of biology is only one aspect to the story. For instance, a man does not die only of food poisoning or in being killed by his enemy. A person could even be dead with his dead spirit, as against a state of being full of life. One could also say that life is a process of consistent growth and flourish as Aristotle theorized. Any factor discouraging the said process might affect the development which may otherwise be achievable.
Open market economy
In a commercially developed world that is dominated by the open market economy, life of an individual is shaped by the commercial elements on which his needs are founded upon. Therefore, every individual has a separate identity of his own identifiable in terms of the quality he maintains. In other words, life in totality is not simply mere existence but it’s about quality - quality in every individual case.
Hence, life is not merely a matter of physical existence but is inclusive of all such details, intricacies and all such aspects that could influence existence of a human person in totality - physical, mental, spiritual, social, economical, political and the list goes on. It is those that distinguish all persons, a doctor from a nurse, a teacher from a student, a rich man from a beggar, a child from his parent, a man from a woman and again the list goes on. Ideally, it would mean to facilitate a person with everything that he may need to lead his life to the fullest. But then again should not it depend on the ultimate definition of what life is? As long as no definition to life can be adduced, these matters shall eternally remain unresolved. In view of such a complicated reality with subtle intricacies distinguishing one person from another, it would be the most difficult task to ensure that all men live their life to the fullest.
This perception is equally true of the philosophy of one’s right to life. The right to life, in its most basic sense, is the right of man to exist as a human person. However, as life itself is an irreducible notion, the right to life equally goes beyond a mere suggestion of mere existence. Therefore, the right to life is to live life to the fullest, the ideal life with all needs met. In this sense, it becomes thus far the widest and the most intrinsic right of all other rights. Many religious traditions equally buttress the dignity of life and the right to such sublime life. Therefore, full operation of this right would mean that all factors affecting a human person to lead life would have to be facilitated and anything which could hinder such progression be prevented. Does it then mean that a person who is deprived of those provisions to secure the perfect life does not enjoy his right to life? In the broader sense, the answer would be positive.
This is a primary responsibility of the governments of the nations and the right been encoded as a human right in the respective constitutions is often the first step. But given the above discussed complexity, those varying conditions or qualities decisive of each person’s individual right cannot be regulated by one single body as much common in identity as the government.
Therefore, legally this right has been restricted to be used only as against physical deprivation of life. Accordingly, it generally establishes that every human being has the inherent right to life which shall be protected by law and that no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. In other words, it places the right in the realm of mere existence as against quality. Rather theoretically, in this sense, right to life shall be preservation of one’s life against all elements and factors that could otherwise destroy it. But this again is apparently a matter of merit.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the most authoritative document on human rights in the world, which was adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in the year 1948, affirmed that every person has a fundamental right to life, liberty and security. The same was reaffirmed in several other documents that mainly includes Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 11 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and Article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. By today, almost all the constitutions of the nations in the world have recognized it as a fundamental human right.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Bill of Independence of the United States of America has it as their foremost right and our neighbouring country of India has equally been able to recognize it under Article 21 of their Constitution. However, quite surprisingly, although more than half a century has lapsed after the introduction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it has long been absorbed into the system of international law, the right to life was not included in the list of fundamental rights of the existing Constitution of Sri Lanka. Many observers of this lacuna are seen to have simply stated the observation while no particular reason in this regard has been cited for discussion or argued on. However, the recent proposals for a new constitution could be seen to have given enough consideration to the issue hence the inclusion of the right to life under the new proposed set of fundamental rights.
The irony is that in today’s world, the mere codification of the right has not actually been able to ensure that a citizen enjoys this right in full. In fact it has been even worse than a country that has not codified the right at all. This is true of the world’s most powerful nation, the USA, where an increasing number of gun shootings at innocent civilians took place at recent times. The right to life is the first listed item on the USA’s Bill of Independence. However, in Sri Lanka, though such right to life has not been documented in the list of fundamental rights, such gun shootings are comparatively rare in occurrence. Possession of a weapon is itself a criminal offense under the Penal Code unless a valid license is presented which is yet not a commonality. The difference is that America legally protects it as a right to keep and bear arms on the ground of self-defense whereas in reality such gun usage has been a threat to the populace’s right to life than for self-defense.
Thus, as can be seen the interpretation of the content of this right is rather a complex one. It even overlaps at times with its rival notion as in the case of permitting to bear a gun on the basis of self-defense whereas it has an equal possibility of producing the counter effect of being used to cause harm and death. However, the absence of a gun to be used for self-defense has not been a cause of the increasing death rate in any country which does not expressly follow such right either. On the other hand, countries like Sri Lanka with no such right in their constitutions seem to have guaranteed the same in rather indirect ways.
As stated, Sri Lanka does not expressly recognize the right to life in its list of fundamental rights. However, it implicitly recognizes this through other fundamental rights that are set out in Chapter III of the Constitution. Article 11 of the Constitution states that no person shall be subject to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 13 (2) provides that any person may not be held in custody, detained or otherwise be deprived of personal liberty.
Article 17 provides for the right to apply to the Supreme Court in respect of any such infringement. In this way, the law has safeguarded life and does not typically permit deprivation of life except in situations restricted only to justified deprivation as in the case of self-defense or where it is by way of an order of court.
Add new comment