By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 17 August 2012
Edit Thread
badgenome said:

Yeah, I recall how the conversation went. Let me ask again: why do you think that an ethics system based on rights, positive or negative, is only about rights? Locke did not promote the idea of positive rights, but his philosophy did not begin and end with the idea of negative rights.

The preamble merely lays out the case for the government and emphasizes that the powers of the government are derived from the consent of the governed. It does not grant any powers, and those two little words certainly do not trump the rest of the Constitution or destroy the notion of enumerated powers - although they have been seized upon to do just that, as Madison predicted. But if you want to argue with the guy who wrote the Constitution, that is your prerogative.

You want to show that the Founding Fathers considered that negative rights are the only rights people had?  Apparently in the Declaration of Independence, life and the pursuit of happiness were named with liberty as inalienable rights.  Life and the pursuit of happiness, combined with what is in the constitution leads to an expectation of society, and governance to enable these pursuits.  The preamble speaking of a forming a more perfect union also speaks to it.  It isn't just a matter of everyone doing what they please.

In regards to a rights-based ethic systems, it is all about rights.  It judges ethicalness of decisions based on how much the actions uphold rights.  AS I SAID BEFORE, this does not mean a society or individuals only would believe and argue that a rights-based ethics system is the ONLY system used by an individual or society.  And it would be fairly certain, Locke likely would end up saying society has other things involved.

As far as relevance today, in American society, rights are THE basis by which everything is argued for the basis of moral conduct.  The abortion issue is framed in right to life or right to choice.  Cruelty to animals is framed in a context of animal rights (http://www.peta.org/about/default.aspx).  Want to argue for environmental standards and recycling, argue the earth has rights.  The entire basis of doing things in American society is my rights vs your rights.  And you see this with the issue originally discussed in the original post, regarding contraception.

Can people argue beyond just rights?  Yes, they can.  But do they.  Show where it is done differently on common ground.  Ethical issues are settled in courts, based on rights.