remember the definition,
Right n.
That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
The right to live, then, would be the right not to have one's life taken in a way that is not just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. In your first hypothetical, it would be legal, proper, fitting, etcetera to defend your family-a threatening intruder's life could be taken in a way that would not be unjust. The sea, in the second, is amoral and can in no way act in a way either just or unjust. Drowning is tragic, but hardly an abridgement of rights.
Again, I emphasize that rights are those things which are just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting, things which *should* happen and which *should* govern our dealings with one another. Just because I have a right does not guarantee that it will be honored. Just because a right is not honored doesn't mean that it is not a right. This seems to be the crux of the misunderstanding. A right is *not* an absolute guarantee of what *must* happen, it is merely that which *should* happen, that which would be just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. |