In many ways there can be no more fundamental right than that of continued life, if it may be called a right at all, because without continued life the remaining 'rights' lose a certain amount of value. A life is the single most valuable possession we have, because it cannot be replaced, and because it empowers all others. What good is property if we're dead? Dead men, whether they believe they own something or not, cannot use or keep it -- inheritance is a right of living relatives, not of dead original owners -- so we can say the right to life takes precedence.
So now a hard question. If one were meant to live forever, could he be reasonably accurate to think his life was more valuable than another's? His opportunity cost, if you could call it that, for losing his life would be greater, certainly. He'll live longer, after all, if nothing goes wrong.
Related to that is the question of whether, in a kill or be killed situation, it can be said for certain which should survive -- except that from behind his eyes, he believes himself the more valuable. I cannot say whether he'd be right in believing that, either.
Does the right to life he has trump the right to life of another? It is easy to think so -- but does such a selfish judgement now devalue him, making the other one more valuable in comparison after all?
It is an interesting question -- and interesting questions deserve due diligence, and exploration. Graham, therefore, must face this decision at some point during the storyline.
No comments:
Post a Comment