Do people have an inherent right to live?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Do people have an inherent right to live?

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

wateroverfire posted:

However the quibble is in your objection, not the positive/negative distinction!

If rephrasing "the right to X" as "the right to not be prevented from X" doesn't change the obligation involved then you haven't semantically switched from positive to negative - the obligation is the same so you're playing word games while practically speaking the right is still positive or negative. For instance:

A right to health care --> An obligation on others to provide you health care.
A right not to be prevented from receiving health care --> An obligation on others to provide you health care (which is the same as an obligation not to refuse to provide you health care).

It's the same positive right because it's imposing an obligation on others to do something for you.

However, if rephrasing does change the obligation then you're actually talking about a different right and we're not in the realm of semantics at all. For instance:

A right not to be killed --> An obligation on others to refrain from killing you. (negative right)
A right to life --> An open ended obligation on others to keep you alive. (positive right)

The implications of those two rights are very different and not merely word play. (I'm open to the idea that there's a better way to rewrite either right not to be killed or a right to life but I couldn't think how to do it).

I think his issue is that negative and positive rights have no actual distinction because there is no actual thing as negative rights. Just from the wikipedia definition of a negative right:

quote:

A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action.

The problem with the definition is that not subjecting someone to an action is still in fact an action. There is no actual thing as inaction (maybe once the heat death of the universe comes, we'll have true inaction). If we take inaction to mean action without conscious consideration, "a right not to be killed" does not meet the requirements of a negative right because (for example), if I am working dangerous chemicals in the vicinity of you, I have an obligation to consciously take action and prevent you from interacting with or inhaling said chemicals without your knowledge or permission. Since a right can only be negative if the only action required by 3rd parties is inaction, the right not to be killed cannot be considered to be a negative right.

Similarly, libertarian property ownership rights are not actually negative rights, because not only does the right impose an obligation to not trespass, but it also imposes an obligation that the person in question be able to distinguish from the properties of multiple people and respect their rights, a burdensome obligation for someone who is blind or who has a memory loss condition.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Mar 4, 2015

# ¿ Mar 4, 2015 16:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 12:33

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

wateroverfire posted:

The ethical rule that arise from people having for instance a right not to be killed would be something like "Can I reasonably assume doing X is going to kill someone? In that case don't do X." or "Can I reasonably assume by doing X I can prevent someone from being killed by something else I am contemplating doing? If so then do X.". The ethical rule arising from a right ot life is going to be different - something like "Can I reasonably assume that by doing X I can preserve someone's life whether or not I am the source of danger to them in the first place? In that case do X."

Now I'm not saying it isn't praiseworthy to do what you can to preserve life whether or not you're threatening it in the first place. But as an obligation that is pretty open ended while the "Don't kill people" obligation is not. That's the practical distinction between positive and negative rights. Splitting hairs about whether with awkward phrasing we can turn an obligation to not murder someone into an obligation to act not to murder someone is the ivory tower bullshit. IMO, anyway.

i would love to hear how you're distinguishing open-ended and not open ended, cause "Can I reasonably assume doing X is going to kill someone? In that case don't do X." or "Can I reasonably assume by doing X I can prevent someone from being killed by something else I am contemplating doing? If so then do X" are both open-ended obligations. plus, a negative right is not supposed to oblige any action, much less conscious action. again, i really doubt there's really any line between "negative" and "positive" rights at all

# ¿ Mar 8, 2015 02:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Do people have an inherent right to live?