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

[richardhutnik]

Mnementh said:

richardhutnik said:

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.

I don't think taxes are theft or something. But constructing from "violating a personal right of someone else is wrong" to "there has someone to enforce, that my rights aren't violating" is moving the whole thing to another level. No ethical system can enforce anything. That are laws and law-enforcement for. The ethical system is for providing a theoretical base, on which the laws are founded.

richardhutnik said:

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.

No, because a duty-based system has the same issues: it cannot enforce compliance. You can find situation, in which the duties are contradicting each other or are leading to harm if followed to the word. No ethical system can provide that.

 

The thing is, if you go into the Libertarian camp, which is more into rights-based ethics, than antyhing else, they will argue that taxation is theft.  Because of this, I have to make mention of it.  And on one level it can be argued that it is theft, particularly when individuals refuse to believe there is such a thing as a social contract.

I also made mention of duty-based, because of the frame of mind it operates in.  I was saying an ethical system, where people think in terms of what their obligations are, rather than what their rights are, ends up producing self-compliance that actually benefits others. I would also note that you would take all that I wrote, not just one of duty-based but als the ones of mutual concern, and so on...  Such an ethical system, with people faithfully following, would produce one over where people argue they have rights, and would produce a better way to rebound from down times, than a strictly negative rights one.  Also, I would make note here to that it can also be argued that ethical systems contain no rights, and are merely based around duties.  Where those duties are derived is a separate issue though.