The Infringement and Responsibility Principle.
All things are created with one inalienable right, the right to pursue happiness. All other rights, whether it is that of life or speech or countless others, directly stem from the right we all have to pursue happiness.
Recently I was asked the question, �How do we determine what is right and what is wrong?� This is an excellent question and one that men have struggled with from the beginning of time. In a time when the destructive hand of terrorism is reaching out across the globe, it has never become more important to understand the differences between right and wrong and to develop a sound measure to determine which is which.
I thought about that question long and hard. I thought about what I think is the difference, what others think is the difference, what the common differences are, and so on. What I have come to find I have labeled the �Infringement and Responsibility Principle.� To understand the IRP, one must take a look at the right we all have regardless of where we live, who we are, or under what circumstances we survive, that right is the pursuit of happiness.
The right to pursue happiness is very important to each and every one of us, though we may thoroughly disagree on what �happiness� is. Because of that disagreement, the unabated pursuit of happiness can only lead to chaos and anarchy. Some may believe anarchy in and of itself is a solution, but as we have seen throughout history, the advancements of our societies have led to future generations being able to achieve greater and greater levels of happiness. In order to have a successful society we must have a system of laws to abide by.
These systems of law, in order to stand the test of time and the onslaught of criticism, must be just. How we determine if the law in question is just leads me into the Infringement and Responsibility Principle. We all have the right to pursue happiness, but the key to that pursuit is creating a careful balance between our pursuit and that of others. This means our right to pursue happiness must not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. For example, if one murder may make the psychotic happy, its affect on the victim�s right to pursue happiness is obvious. We can therefore use the �infringement� guideline as the basis for judging the justness of a law.
What happens if the rights to pursue happiness of two or more parties unintentionally infringe on each other? We can examine this conflict in one of today�s most debated and heated issues, abortion. The abortion issue centers on the right to pursue happiness of two parties that of the mother and that of the child. The mother making the difficult decision to have an abortion reasons that decision with the effect having a child will have on her pursuit of happiness. Likewise, the Pro-Life movement makes the argument that there is no one to stand up for the unborn child�s right to pursue happiness which can only be done through life. This conflict is something we as a society have never been able to rectify.
Using the Infringement and Responsibility Principle we must now make a decision as to right and wrong. Assuming the pregnancy has occurred through normal means and not through rape or incest, is it right for the mother to terminate the life of her unprotected, unborn child? Is it right that the mother should have to suffer the consequences of bring this child into the world? She could lose her job or she may not be able to afford the things necessary to insure a safe pregnancy. The mother beliefs this �choice� is something she is making for the good of herself and her child. However, when we step back and take an objective look at the situation, we must ask ourselves where the �responsibility� lays.
The child did not ask to be conceived, nor did it knowingly infringe the right to pursue happiness of its mother. Likewise, the mother did not wish for the child to be conceived, nor did she set out to make such a personal decision as abortion. But, the mother�s decisions have led her to this juncture. From the time we are born, we are taught to accept the responsibility of our actions, so too must we recognize this responsibility when determining if a law is just. Because the mother made the decision to have intercourse and not take the necessary precautions to insure pregnancy could not occur, she has inadvertently brought this situation to fruition.
By utilizing the Infringement and Responsibility Principle we can come to the conclusion, in this specific case, that the abortion would be unjust. The mother in this case must take the responsibility for her actions and do what is best for that child. This does not mean she must raise the child, but merely bring it into this world so that it too may begin its pursuit of happiness. The correct course of action may be for her to give the child up for adoption or maybe raise it herself, these will be decisions she must weigh as to determine what is best for her right to pursue happiness and the right of the child�s.
Abortion is a very controversial issue, so perhaps if you are a pro-choice supporter, as I am, you might immediately come to the conclusion that the Infringement and Responsibility Principle doesn�t work. Let us investigate further. Using the IRP, how would it affect the father in the above example? Let us suppose the mother is going to keep the child. The father is not ready and believes having a child now will infringe on his rights to pursue happiness. However, by his not supporting the mother, we are seeing his rights in conflict with her and the child�s. Falling back to the IRP, we can see that the father bears responsibility for his actions as well. The just thing would be for him to bear equal burden for the child. What exactly the burden he should bear is something they will have to decide, whether it is monetary, as is often the case, or whether it is joint custody, etc.
I would challenge those who still do not believe the Infringement and Responsibility Principle could not be used to determine what is just to think of various situations or laws and use it to determine whether it is just. The death penalty, slavery, redistribution of wealth, welfare, gun ownership, gay marriage or some other highly disputed issues are all excellent spots to begin. What you may find may challenge your own beliefs.
Have fun,
j
23 people think they have something witty to say about this entry.
