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.