|
richardhutnik said: 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. |
You claim that all thinkable right has to be in a rights-system. That would be the same as to say, that rule-based-system can't work, as every thinkable rule contain conflicting rules. The right of free speech is part of one rights-based-systems - the human rights charta. The right to not be offended is not part of that system. Based on that system it is clear who is in the right and who is wrong.
You could build another system, that contains the right of not get offended but not the right of free speech. Again one of the conflicting parties is in the right based on that system, the other not. Only it's the other party now. You could make also a system, that contains both rights and proritize them. Easy enough.
Most people on the world (besides some crackpots and dictators) agree that the human rights are a good system. I also choose to favor the system of human rights over other ethical system, for instance the ten commandments from the bible.
If you want a real argument - tell me, can you construct a conflict on the human rights? I think thats possible, but I also think the constructed situation is absurd.
