HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:
Mnementh said:
richardhutnik said:
Pretty much anything that isn't simply resolved comes about when you have rights in conflict. When everything is merely framed in context of rights, there is a lack of yielding or seeing a larger collective good picture. In short, you can't build an optimal ethical structure on rights alone or even one based mainly on rights.
|
Rights are conflicting, yes thats very old wisdom. But that doesn't mean you can't build an ethical structure based on rights, you only have to prioritize them.
You could say the same about rules: rules are conflicting with each other. Even if they come from a rules-system, like the 10 commandments from the bible: you can always build situations where these things are conflicting with each other. So - that's your point?
|
Part of the point. The other part is that rights-based ethics systems end up with advocacy groups arguing for certain rights, and a conflict approach to end up resolving them. You win the conflict and gain the ability to exercise your rights, at the expense of others. Because of this arguing for rights, on one wants a certain right to have lower priority than another one. The battle is over this right or that being superior. Libertarians place Liberty above others (even to the extent of denying other rights exists). You will see progressives placing the quality of life of individuals above others, including property rights. Conservatives will place the right to preserve tradition above others. Individuals who are capitalistic end up placing property rights above every other right.
|
I would like to see examples of people arguing for one negative right at the expense of another negative right ...
|
One of the ultimate entities that would fully manifest the exercising of negative rights is a rock. A rock sits there, minds its own business and doesn't do anything. Of course, it is not living and has no needs and doesn't bother anyone. But it is not alive.
Pretty much when you argue negative rights, you are saying that what you do doesn't infringe upon me in any way. One area this can happen is in the area of freedom of speech and freedom to not listen. In a common area, an individual can say they are free to say what they want, and not have this right infringed upon. Another person says they have a right to not hear what someone says, or be offended. They will claim to not hear something is their right, as much as the person who says they do have a right to speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights
|
But the right not to be offended is not a legitimate right ... You are in control over your emotional reactions to what someone says or does, it is not up to someone else to protect your emotional reaction.
To use some examples, a racist may be offended by the presence of black people if a person has the right not to be offended then it is the obligation of the black person to resolve that situation; a homophobe may be offended by the discussion of homosexuality on television, and if a person has the right not to be offended then the television station should not be allowed to broadcast content that offends him.
Essentially, the right not to be offended is a poorly worded positive right; it is the right to have other people provide you with an emotional state of non-offence.
|
If the foundation of negative rights is to be left alone, then not being offended, or being impacted by others, would fit into this. For example, by following what you are saying, the Westboro Baptist Church is in the right, for saying homosexuals are going Hell outside of a funeral.
And also, the distinction between positive and negative rights is subject to debate also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights#Criticisms
About every right can be argued to have a positive or negative aspect to it. I would say this comes out, in part, to the desire of an individual to maintain or obtain a certain state, which they consider their right to have. Anything that works against this state is seen as violating their rights.
