Right (adj); is a principle that ascended from a moral expectation of what ought to be good from evil. Right implies essential rules and deeds to promote the preservation and maintenance of life. Therefore, thoughts and actions that promote harm and endanger life is wrong.
However, this is now contradicted by the law of assisted dying based on advanced state of illness.
Thus, right is now a relative term, but also a debatable notion from various personal, cultural, political and popular perspectives. This is true of a diverse social environment where what's right for one group is not for another.
So, it seems that what's right is no longer an absolute principle but more likely to be determined by the majority.
From the standpoint of Tradition, life is absolute therefore preservation and maintenance of life is the right thing to do. Arbitrary laws cannot justify the validity of assisted dying.
This is a clear demonstration of the struggle between Tradition and Modernity.
- 1. A Right (noun); refers to a condition of one's eligibility to something or service, or entitlement to something or a service based on meeting the required conditions.
A. These conditions are limited to age and in some cases gender. For example; a child may be prohibited by law to own and operate a gun or own and operate a motor vehicle.
- 2. Rights that are based on the conditions of ethnicity, gender or status is considered out of date and obsolete in the modern age of diversity.
- 3. A right to a service based on the condition of culture, tradition, belief or political is based on a relative condition of the stated rules of that organisation or entity.
A. This however must observe the preceding rights 1, 2 and 3; that one is not refused service because of his/her ethnicity or age. B. At the same time, consideration must also respect condition 1 and A.
That is a true work in progress because you have to navigate the definitions in order to have a somewhat relative resolution.
Now, I am going to try and justify the right wing nationalists and religious fundamentalists so-called right to be free from vaccinations and lockdowns.
I have used the terms Dark Force to describe the organisation of right wing nationalists and religious fundamentalists and their behaviour in antivaxxed protests confronting and threatening innocent people as Dark Mode.
They justify their Dark Mode behaviour on the pretext of Right and Freedom. The Dark Force entity is a group from all ethnicities, considered to be motivated by the rich private sector. Their cause is therefore ideological protesting against the government to challenge democratic decisions.
The right wing Dark Force did not explain the reasons of their protest but they were plenty of threats and aggressive action targeting the government. This comes in light of activists sentenced to harsh punishment for sedition and saying un-nice things about their government.
Now, protest against lockdowns is an act against preservation of life. A right not to be vaccinated is not a shared value or traditional belief shared among the right wing and private sector. But this sentiment is also shared by members of different political groups including culture and religion. Therefore, the antivaxxed stand is fragmented among individuals and definitely not a group consensus.
If this is group representative stand, then hey should go back to the founding rules of their organisation and establish the legal basis of their claim.
The decision not to be vaccinated is an individual's choice. There might be health reason behind the decision.
However, since the vaccine therapy intending to protect and preserve life, and the individual is not a member of an tradition or culture, or for health reasons, the right to vaccinate precedes the right not to be.
If the antivaxxed individual has a family of infants and elderly who are not able to be vaccinated, this individual is placing the lives of those members of his/her family at risk.
The resolution examined potentials among diverse groups from culture, tradition and political down to the individual and the issue is not representative of any one group. It crossed over politics and beliefs, and like the individual, the preservation of life of the vulnerable is paramount.
There's no doubt that the struggle between Tradition and Modernity seems to corrode shared values, but the fact is society is changing and values should modify to be relevant or left behind in absolutes.
Nonetheless, the classic struggle is an effective method of modernisation; the valid modification of absolutes and tradition.