| richardhutnik said: If you want to say that negative rights ethical system has a duty, the duty is arguably as little as possible, and be fullfilled by just rolling over and dying. It is all about leaving others alone, and you don't even need to do anything to help anyone else. You don't even need to be aware of others. |
No, it's all about human interaction being on a voluntary basis. There isn't just one ethical system based on negative rights, since anyone can start from that basis and build off of it in a different direction. Locke was a proponent of such a system, but he also believed in a god and thought that man's duty was to live his life to God's delight. This is why merely rolling over and dying isn't sufficient in the Lockean view, and why he was opposed to suicide. The inalienable right to life in Locke's view meant just that: you literally can't get out until God releases you. I'd disagree, since I think a person wholly owns himself and isn't beholden to a god who may or may not exist, and if he wants to end his life he should be able to. I don't think suicide is always an ethical choice, though. It's a remarkably shitty thing to do if it means absconding from your responsibilities to your kids, for example.
