More evidence that rights-based ethical systems have flawed foundations.

[richardhutnik]

Mnementh said:

richardhutnik said: 

In regards to your second point, it would depend on what is meant by working.  If working means, "provide some framework to answer ethical questions" then yes, a rights-based system can work. If it means "to be able to resolve ethical questions, without there being contradictions, and sometimes being on par with having no ethical system but have something akin merely the most resourceful in a fight and doesn't have flaws in its foundation" then no, a rights-based ethics system doesn't work.

If you apply this, there is no working ethical system. They all contain contradiction, they all have weak points. If you think it's so bad, name some example of a system that works better in this regard.

 

richardhutnik said:  

I could end up arguing here that, in the case of negative rights, they either end up acting as positive rights, or end up being duties.  Take the example of criminal acts with victims.  In this, if you have a rights-based ethical system, based on negative rights, that would argue that there is a right to not be a victim, and this is a said negative right, and is a reason for a society to exist.  Well, to make this work, an individual would then come to expect upon society they live in to keep themselves free of criminals. This would then call upon society to come up with law enforcement, pass laws and so on, to protect people from criminals.  In doing this they would end up taxing people, taking their money against the will of people to do this, because it is agreed that people not have this.  The right to not be a victim ends up becoming a positive right, that would infringe on the rights of others to their own property and not theft.

You mix things up. An ethical system is for deciding, if something is right or wrong. Rights-based-systems see violatin of this rights as something wrong. Enforcing punishment for wrongdoing is something completely different. It has nothing to do with the ethical system. And no ethical system can enforce anything. The ten commandments are without some force putting out punishment for wrongdoers nothing. You also wrong, that you need a tax or paid law enforcement. There are other ways to enforce being in line with an ethical system, but that's usually more complicated so we stick in reality to central power that have taxes and pay for law enforcement.

richardhutnik said: 

In this, one then can end up saying, "But this doesn't need to happen.  People can end up paying for their own law enforcement and protection, why have taxes and fees and provide it for everyone?"  At this point, you no longer even have a negative right for everyone, to not have harm done to them, but you have a duty you impose on everyone.  It is a restriction on behavior.  It isn't a right, it is an obligation that people don't harm others.  Also, for a person who wants to be protected, they need to do it themselves, and that also becomes a duty.  It is very little different than a system where there is no morals or ethics either, because this exact state of self-protection, and use of aggression are seen as the rule of the wilds, with the stronger picking on the weaker failure to protect oneself means you failed in your own moral duty to protect yourself, so it is more of the consequence of a failure to meet one's own duty, than it is that one had their own rights violated.

In this, you end up with either rights in conflict due to them being positive rights without any means of harmonizing and the ethical system in conflict with itself, or you end up with something merely reduced to demands placed on individuals that need to be met, and failure to do so results in consequences, and not rights at all.

Again, you mix up things here. The ethical system answers if something is wrong or right. A society as a whole has much more to care about. And that's why an ethical system is only one part.

Again, which ethical system can deliver what you miss in rights-based-systems?

 

Me:

I was looking at the dicussion here of negative vs positive rights.  This argument of separating them comes normally from individuals who consider taxes as theft.  What I was arguing here is that if you do make being free from crime something to expect, it then would be considered a positive right, and place demands of tax dollars be taken from individuals, even individuals who believe they can pay for their own protection, and don't need to pay for the protection of others in the process.  If expressed as a negative right, then I argue it really isn't a right at all but a duty someone must exercise for themselves and act upon to make happen, and also a negative duty to not act on someone else.

In regards to ethical systems that work better than a rights-based one, presuming that ethical systems need willing compliance to work, I would say one that is duty-based, where individuals look after one another, mutually care for one another, and act in a kind and loving matter would work better than one where everyone argues they have rights for things.  The net impact of the society as a whole would be better overall.