|
Effectronica posted:Yes, for no reason at all. What's wrong with it, ethically, since I'm doing it on my property? I guess it depends on how far you place them from your unmarked mine field.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:To directly engage with that point - no, I don't think that's right. As a practical matter there is far less enforcement capacity than you'd need to enforce, for instance, a right not to be killed, if people weren't morally wired not to kill to begin with. How many cops are there in a city like New York? If people were mostly down with killing other people the whole system would collapse. Clearly our moral framework - that is, things we consider basic rights - influences society independant of how those rights are enforced. This doesn't address my point, which is that from a purely logical perspective there is no distinction between a negative and a positive right. All negative rights contain positive rights, and vice-versa. Some rights may be more or less expensive for a government to enforce, or a better or worse idea from one perspective or another, but the distinction between a positive and negative right is a rhetorical flourish without logical support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:This doesn't address my point, which is that from a purely logical perspective there is no distinction between a negative and a positive right. All negative rights contain positive rights, and vice-versa. Some rights may be more or less expensive for a government to enforce, or a better or worse idea from one perspective or another, but the distinction between a positive and negative right is a rhetorical flourish without logical support. Can you lay that argument out, because it doesn't seem to follow. Just by the definitions of the terms, there is a distinction between negative and positive rights right off the bat. Whether some rights imply other rights - and I don't see how you evaulate that on anything other than a case by case basis - doesn't impact whether there's a distinction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Can you lay that argument out, because it doesn't seem to follow. In order to have, say, freedom of speech, people must not be able to suppress speech. Therefore, positive action is necessary to defend the negative right, meaning there is a positive right, an obligation to defend free speech in order to have the negative right to speak freely. Otherwise, a campaign of terrorism against dissidents would not infringe free speech.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Yes because golden rule. Next debate topic - is jamming a glass jar up your rear end a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Can you lay that argument out, because it doesn't seem to follow. Because its worthless to have a "right" if it can be controverted at a moments notice with no recourse to the victim or punishment for the violator. A purely negative right is meaningless without any way to defend it - but that defense constitutes a positive right or obligation on some other person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:In order to have, say, freedom of speech, people must not be able to suppress speech. Therefore, positive action is necessary to defend the negative right, meaning there is a positive right, an obligation to defend free speech in order to have the negative right to speak freely. What people can and can't get away with is a different sort of question from this one. A right to, say, not have your speech curtailed implies that others have an obligation not to do that. A campaign of terrorism against dissidents would breach that obligation and curtail their speech. In what way do you have to appeal to an obligation to defend free speech to get to that result?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Can you lay that argument out, because it doesn't seem to follow. Any 'negative' or 'positive' right you can state will necessarily imply a converse obligation. It's just a rhetorical framing trick. Edit: you can restate any negative right as a positive right and vice versa. It's just rhetoric, not substantive. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What people can and can't get away with is a different sort of question from this one. Actually, it isn't. If a right supposedly is valued but is regularly infringed without consequence, it does not really exist.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Actually, it isn't. If a right supposedly is valued but is regularly infringed without consequence, it does not really exist. Eh, *now* you're getting debatable I think. What about if a theoretical possible enforcement tool exists? Say, African American civil rights in the Jim crow era. How about the right yo be free of warrantless surveillance right now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Any 'negative' or 'positive' right you can state will necessarily imply a converse obligation. It's just a rhetorical framing trick. In one case it's an obligation to refrain from doing something and in the other it's an obligation to do something. That's what the distinction is about. ie: You're obligated to not kill me vs. you're obligated to support me because otherwise I will die. The implications are not the same. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Because its worthless to have a "right" if it can be controverted at a moments notice with no recourse to the victim or punishment for the violator. A purely negative right is meaningless without any way to defend it - but that defense constitutes a positive right or obligation on some other person. Defense of a negative right needn't constitute a positive right, though. For instance, your right not to be killed does not obligate the police, or anyone else, anyone to protect your life. They may investigate after the fact but they're looking after society's interest rather than yours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, *now* you're getting debatable I think. What about if a theoretical possible enforcement tool exists? Say, African American civil rights in the Jim crow era. Those rights did not exist, until they were won as a result of social and political struggle. This is why "human rights" is so nonsensical as a framework for human liberation etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Defense of a negative right needn't constitute a positive right, though. For instance, your right not to be killed does not obligate the police, or anyone else, anyone to protect your life. They may investigate after the fact but they're looking after society's interest rather than yours. If your negative rights are not protected then what happens when they are challenged? They disappear. They go away. They do not exist. They were an illusion all along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:12
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, *now* you're getting debatable I think. What about if a theoretical possible enforcement tool exists? Say, African American civil rights in the Jim crow era. Well, that's the thing. We call the US racist in part because while there are theoretically equal rights, in practice those rights are not defended equally. Similarly, the right to privacy is effectively dead because of the push towards panopticon, even though the legal justification for it exists.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:If your negative rights are not protected then what happens when they are challenged? They disappear. They go away. They do not exist. They were an illusion all along. Alternately, whether you have a right or not does not impact whether that can sometimes be violated. Having a right not to be murdered doesn't mean that as a practical matter you can't be murdered, but having that right does mean that you aren't murdered by people who recognize it a lot more than you are by people who don't. It's social convention and deep wired moral reasoning that keep you from getting killed, mostly, and not the police - who are not around to prevent it most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Alternately, whether you have a right or not does not impact whether that can sometimes be violated. Having a right not to be murdered doesn't mean that as a practical matter you can't be murdered, but having that right does mean that you aren't murdered by people who recognize it a lot more than you are by people who don't. It's social convention and deep wired moral reasoning that keep you from getting killed, mostly, and not the police - who are not around to prevent it most of the time. You're not describing a "right" though. You're merely describing "what usually happens". If nobody is obliged to act to prevent murder, or to resuscitate a victim, or to punish a murderer - then how can you be said to have a right not to be murdered? The most you can say is that murder is uncommon. It is those obligations that allow you to say you have a right in something. Otherwise a "right" is only "whatever would have happened anyway". That would be pretty banal wouldn't you agree?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, that's the thing. We call the US racist in part because while there are theoretically equal rights, in practice those rights are not defended equally. Similarly, the right to privacy is effectively dead because of the push towards panopticon, even though the legal justification for it exists. When I say "X has the right to Y," though, I'm not just making a descriptive statement about the current system as it exists now. I'm also making a prescriptive, normative, affirmative statement about how the system should be. We may not currently be free from warrantless surveillance, but we have the right to be so free, we should be so free. Whether a "right" is currently enforceable isn't the issue; the issue is whether or not it should be enforceable. That's the real question that "rights" language addresses. To invoke the language of rights is not to describe, it is to advocate. wateroverfire posted:For instance, your right not to be killed does not obligate the police, or anyone else, anyone to protect your life. They may investigate after the fact but they're looking after society's interest rather than yours. No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that for any given right, whether you state it as negative or positive is purely semantic. To take your example, your passive right to not be killed is also affirmatively your right to active self-defense. It's just a shift from passive to active voice, not a substantive logical difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:27
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:When I say "X has the right to Y," though, I'm not just making a descriptive statement about the current system as it exists now. I'm also making a prescriptive, normative, affirmative statement about how the system should be. We may not currently be free from warrantless surveillance, but we have the right to be so free, we should be so free. Whether a "right" is currently enforceable isn't the issue; the issue is whether or not it should be enforceable. That's the real question that "rights" language addresses. To invoke the language of rights is not to describe, it is to advocate. Okay, but I'm not just describing the system. Like, one of the signs that Americans were extremely racist is that the average person would not defend black rights. Rights as a social construction are something that require active support, and Americans often don't have that much active support for our rights outside of the governmental aspect of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:When I say "X has the right to Y," though, I'm not just making a descriptive statement about the current system as it exists now. I'm also making a prescriptive, normative, affirmative statement about how the system should be. We may not currently be free from warrantless surveillance, but we have the right to be so free, we should be so free. Whether a "right" is currently enforceable isn't the issue; the issue is whether or not it should be enforceable. That's the real question that "rights" language addresses. To invoke the language of rights is not to describe, it is to advocate. Whenever someone describes something as a "right", I take it as they mean it is a good idea but cannot or will not articulate why. Because "rights" are these nebulous things that apparently reflect the Realm Of Forms or the Natural Law or the Will of George Washington or whatever they aren't subject to analysis or falsifiability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, but I'm not just describing the system. Like, one of the signs that Americans were extremely racist is that the average person would not defend black rights. Rights as a social construction are something that require active support, and Americans often don't have that much active support for our rights outside of the governmental aspect of it. Ok, fair point, way too few Americans do care about the right to be free from surveillance, etc. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Whenever someone describes something as a "right", I take it as they mean it is a good idea but cannot or will not articulate why. Because "rights" are these nebulous things that apparently reflect the Realm Of Forms or the Natural Law or the Will of George Washington or whatever they aren't subject to analysis or falsifiability. Oh, I can articulate why (for example, since this is a right to life thread) universal health care is "should." It makes more utilitarian sense overall as proven by the European and Canadian models, it's the Christian thing to do, it's in accord with the principles of Full Communism, etc. Come to think of it, I can't think of a single moral system apart from full blown Ayn Rand "objectivism" that doesn't hold up providing health care to those in need as a high moral virtue. But yeah, I think the appropriate response to an affirmative statement of "People have the right to X" is the question "why do you think that?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
This question probably requires better phrasing, perhaps something like "Why should people care if other people get hurt?" Imagine for a second that somebody just bought a self-driving car, and they're cruising on the highway keeping an eye on the road but generally letting the autodriver do its thing. Suddenly, a construction worker trips over a rock and stumbles in the car's way, getting hit. Other than the damage to the car, is the driver obligated to take the positive action of swerving out of the way to dodge the construction worker? Is the driver right in saying "Sucks to be you! I'm not obligated to take action to save your life, if you want to live stay out of the road!" or something like that? Also, since any right to life is a social construction, what if society decides you're some sort of nonperson, as in the case of genocide victims or certain types of criminals? What are they ethically permitted to do about their situation? Thanks again for taking the question seriously, especially given it's lovely origins and phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:This question probably requires better phrasing, perhaps something like "Why should people care if other people get hurt?" For example, if you decide that the ultimate goal of your ethics is to secure the existence of your people and a future for white children then genocide of non-whites may be acceptable. The fact that your entire system of ethics is morally repugnant and demonstrably stupid is beside the point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:This question probably requires better phrasing, perhaps something like "Why should people care if other people get hurt?" That seems like a relatively simple question given that avoiding the construction worker is better for both parties... Unless you are trying to run him over for fun, why wouldn't you avoid him? Killing people for no reason is rather wasteful given that it takes a good amount of time and resources to produce a functioning adult person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:This question probably requires better phrasing, perhaps something like "Why should people care if other people get hurt?" Because most human beings aren't robots and are capable of compassion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:This question probably requires better phrasing, perhaps something like "Why should people care if other people get hurt?" Because you want other people to care when you get hurt. It's pretty much entirely about empathy, reciprocation, and enlightened self-interest. TwoQuestions posted:Imagine for a second that somebody just bought a self-driving car, and they're cruising on the highway keeping an eye on the road but generally letting the autodriver do its thing. Suddenly, a construction worker trips over a rock and stumbles in the car's way, getting hit. If the driver is capable of avoiding the collision without creating further danger in the process, he ought to do so. If you stumbled into the road, would you feel that the driver's callous indifference is appropriate? TwoQuestions posted:Also, since any right to life is a social construction, what if society decides you're some sort of nonperson, as in the case of genocide victims or certain types of criminals? What are they ethically permitted to do about their situation? Well, they certainly can protect themselves as non-violently as possible. Beyond that they should try to appeal to the empathy of others, but that's more of a strategy to change social mores. There's an implication here that if rights are social constructs, then they're subject to the whims of society. To some extent, they are, but society itself is just a series of messy constructs of human interaction. As such, there is no obligation for any one individual to necessarily agree with any particular stance taken by a social organization they belong to. Just like you might disagree with your racist grandparents because your teachers or friends taught you better, a genocidal government can, absolutely, be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Way to miss the point. TwoQuestions isn't saying that he wouldn't swerve, it's a thought experiment designed to show that a strict adherence to negative rights and negative rights only produces "immoral" results. The driver isn't killing the man, because the car is self-driving, he just isn't taking POSITIVE action to not kill the man. Under a strict Negative Rights regime, that would be OK. And that isn't a result many people like
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
I thought it wasn't until recently that it became socially acceptable for deformed, diseased. and genetically feeble folks to make it past the point where they came out of the womb. In many societies, such folks simply had their heads smashed upon the rocks and were left to die. And once that phase passed, it simply became a thing for people to have lots and lots of kids, because instead of someone smashing the baby to death, diseases would do the job for them. And now that neither of those things are an issue, people who are deformed, diseased, and genetically (and mentally) feeble are allowed to live and reproduce (in great numbers, because vaccinations have eliminated the only other natural threat). Only time will tell if not eliminating the weakest elements from our society will benefit or harm us. Now, to be fair, there are some things that can be completely fixed within the first year of life that can allow a citizen to lead a full and productive life. I kinda like the idea of the world turning into an "Idiocracy". Maybe this is as good as it will ever get, and we don't need to strive for anything beyond what we already have. Maybe we need to make things worse for ourselves. I don't really see a problem with me getting a bunch of dumb bitches pregnant while the government supports them with welfare, and it ain't not my problem if my bastards never get an edumication.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Way to miss the point. TwoQuestions isn't saying that he wouldn't swerve, it's a thought experiment designed to show that a strict adherence to negative rights and negative rights only produces "immoral" results. The driver isn't killing the man, because the car is self-driving, he just isn't taking POSITIVE action to not kill the man. Under a strict Negative Rights regime, that would be OK. And that isn't a result many people like Well, he still made a positive, arguably reckless decision to get in the self driving car and rely on its safety, and the company selling the car made the positive decision to sell it. In terms of legal liability this isn' t that complicated -- which is part of why you can't yet buy a self driving car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, he still made a positive, arguably reckless decision to get in the self driving car and rely on its safety, and the company selling the car made the positive decision to sell it. In terms of legal liability this isn' t that complicated -- which is part of why you can't yet buy a self driving car. This is kind of the point though: most real-world situations involve an enormous constellation of positive decisions, so the perfect logical and pragmatic consistency of negative rights only holds up in desert island type scenarios. Of course, requiring perfect logical and pragmatic consistency is a silly standard, but of course of course if that isn't your standard and some kind of humanism is, why not go with positive rights?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
There are plenty of real life example of negative rights actively harming people: drawing up title for lands previously occupied based on tradition instead of legal title. This usually [read: always] results in people being harmed in order to establish a robust regime of negative property rights. See also: enclosure. If you want to be really consistent here, you either have to advocate some kind of jubilee, or else be a Proudhon-style libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Of course, requiring perfect logical and pragmatic consistency is a silly standard, but of course of course if that isn't your standard and some kind of humanism is, why not go with positive rights? eSports Chaebol posted:There are plenty of real life example of negative rights actively harming people: drawing up title for lands previously occupied based on tradition instead of legal title. This usually [read: always] results in people being harmed in order to establish a robust regime of negative property rights. See also: enclosure. If you want to be really consistent here, you either have to advocate some kind of jubilee, or else be a Proudhon-style libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that for any given right, whether you state it as negative or positive is purely semantic. To take your example, your passive right to not be killed is also affirmatively your right to active self-defense. It's just a shift from passive to active voice, not a substantive logical difference. Ah, I see. We're talking about different distinctions. The negative / positive is about the type of duty your right imposes on others. For instance: A negative right to life imposes the obligation "Don't murder a person". A positive right to life imposes the obligation "Keep a person alive". A right to self defense allows that you can resist being murdered if you find yourself in that situation, but that's not the "active voice" restatement of the negative right to life. Not directed specifically at you - Someone, I think it was Cingulate, raised the following point in the Libertarian thread forever ago and I think it bears restating here. All of these concepts have been Things in philosophy for a long time, and they wouldn't be talked about today if they were merely semantic quibbles. =(
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:This question probably requires better phrasing, perhaps something like "Why should people care if other people get hurt?" If it's the case that you can somehow have better reaction speed than your self driving vehicle then you're still operating the car and if you hit someone you could have avoided because you decided "gently caress it, I don't have to swerve" you just committed vehicular homicide or whatever the charge is in your juristiction. OTOH if your autodriver is cruising along at 150mph with the rest of the traffic and someone jumps into the road leaving you no time for you or the machine to react then you haven't even though it's your car and you're behind the wheel. TwoQuestions posted:Also, since any right to life is a social construction, what if society decides you're some sort of nonperson, as in the case of genocide victims or certain types of criminals? What are they ethically permitted to do about their situation? ITT we seriously debate what potential genocide victims (the actual victims worked this problem and their answer apparantly was "nothing") can ethically do to prevent their genocide?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
I'm aware of the history. I, too, have taken college philosophy courses! Just because something has "been a thing in philosophy for a long time" doesn't mean it isn't also fundamentally a semantic quibble :P The criticism I'm raising isn't some brand new thing -- it's been one of the major counterarguments against positive & negative rights theory for a very long time. Even imposing a "negative" obligation to "not murder" will in practical terms require people to take positive overt action to avoid murdering in some instances (for example, switching a trolley car onto a different track). It's fundamentally not possible to make that kind of distinction and have it remain valid in the real world. Ultimately, there's no positive right that can't be rephrased as a negative right (right to not be prevented from X) and vice versa. It's an ivory-tower distinction without practical validity. The reason -- I believe, at least -- that positive/negative rights theory is so popular is not that it's valid; it's that it allows the the convenient, superficial rationalization and trivialization of what are actually very difficult moral dilemmas. It's easy for an ivory-tower philosopher -- or a wealthy man -- to say "you may have a right to life, but it's only negative, and I have a right to be free from theft, so you can't steal bread from me to eat, even though you're starving." This is a very convenient view for libertarians, wealthy people, and other folks who want to have clean consciences while also actively ignoring the plight of the less fortunate. In practical terms though as a society we have to actually address the problem of the poor and starving with something more than negative rights theory; we have to actually look at the competing rights and weigh them against each other and find an optimal solution. This is why Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is initially imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. Under the prevailing legal codes and legal system of the day, he was clearly in the wrong; but he had no other course of action and would otherwise have died, as would the child; the law expected him and his family to just passively accept starvation. This is why things like an actively redistributive public welfare system are a moral imperative. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm aware of the history. I, too, have taken college philosophy courses! Just because something has "been a thing in philosophy for a long time" doesn't mean it isn't also fundamentally a semantic quibble :P The criticism I'm raising isn't some brand new thing -- it's been one of the major counterarguments against positive & negative rights theory for a very long time. I was going to type a reply, but this stated my thoughts better than I would. If you're going to have any meaningful interaction between people and there are Negative Rights between them (the right to live, in this case), then it must be paired with Positive Rights obligating action to protect the aforementioned Negative Rights. If you're out in the wilderness you can fire off a machine gun all you like, but in the city you best keep it in the gun safe. In my car example it's understood you gotta swerve if you can. Wateroverfire, if you're going to assert that only Negative Rights matter then carve out exemptions for Positive Rights in drat near every circumstance save rich/poor interactions, I fail to see how thinking of rights in terms of Negative and Positive has any meaning. Changing gears, how do you go about convincing someone without compassion of a compassionate solution to a problem? If crime in a nearby city you never visit can be reduced substantially by a $10 million investment in infastructure/law enforcement training/whatever, and this investment is proven to work, how do you convince someone who just says "gently caress those city people! If they can't solve their problems without State help they deserve to die!"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if you're going to advocate positive rights you should at least address wateroverfire's question about the limits of personal duty to others. Why? Limits can change based on circumstance and time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm aware of the history. I, too, have taken college philosophy courses! Just because something has "been a thing in philosophy for a long time" doesn't mean it isn't also fundamentally a semantic quibble :P You're right, I retract my absolute statement. Semantic quibbles are indeed like academic catnip! Hieronymous Alloy posted:Even imposing a "negative" obligation to "not murder" will in practical terms require people to take positive overt action to avoid murdering in some instances (for example, switching a trolley car onto a different track). It's fundamentally not possible to make that kind of distinction and have it remain valid in the real world. Ultimately, there's no positive right that can't be rephrased as a negative right (right to not be prevented from X) and vice versa. It's an ivory-tower distinction without practical validity. However the quibble is in your objection, not the positive/negative distinction! If rephrasing "the right to X" as "the right to not be prevented from X" doesn't change the obligation involved then you haven't semantically switched from positive to negative - the obligation is the same so you're playing word games while practically speaking the right is still positive or negative. For instance: A right to health care --> An obligation on others to provide you health care. A right not to be prevented from receiving health care --> An obligation on others to provide you health care (which is the same as an obligation not to refuse to provide you health care). It's the same positive right because it's imposing an obligation on others to do something for you. However, if rephrasing does change the obligation then you're actually talking about a different right and we're not in the realm of semantics at all. For instance: A right not to be killed --> An obligation on others to refrain from killing you. (negative right) A right to life --> An open ended obligation on others to keep you alive. (positive right) The implications of those two rights are very different and not merely word play. (I'm open to the idea that there's a better way to rewrite either right not to be killed or a right to life but I couldn't think how to do it). Hieronymous Alloy posted:The reason -- I believe, at least -- that positive/negative rights theory is so popular is not that it's valid; it's that it allows the the convenient, superficial rationalization and trivialization of what are actually very difficult moral dilemmas. It's easy for an ivory-tower philosopher -- or a wealthy man -- to say "you may have a right to life, but it's only negative, and I have a right to be free from theft, so you can't steal bread from me to eat, even though you're starving." This is a very convenient view for libertarians, wealthy people, and other folks who want to have clean consciences while also actively ignoring the plight of the less fortunate. It's not inconsistent to recognize that the positive / negative rights distinction is a valid thing and also hold the view that, for instance, the above situation is more complex than the facile analysis above. Or even that a rights analysis is not that useful in sorting the situation out because "not starving" is always going to take priority over "respecting X right" in the mind of the transgressor. Rights analysis is good for looking at some types of questions and not so great for others, and that's fine. Hieronymous Alloy posted:In practical terms though as a society we have to actually address the problem of the poor and starving with something more than negative rights theory; we have to actually look at the competing rights and weigh them against each other and find an optimal solution. This is why Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is initially imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. Under the prevailing legal codes and legal system of the day, he was clearly in the wrong; but he had no other course of action and would otherwise have died, as would the child; the law expected him and his family to just passively accept starvation. This is why things like an actively redistributive public welfare system are a moral imperative. However, why is this a competing rights problem? If you have a need should it be permissible to steal from someone else you perceive has less of that need? What about assault them? Murder them? That way lies madness. I think everyone can understand why Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, but he was still justly imprisioned. TwoQuestions posted:In my car example it's understood you gotta swerve if you can. Wateroverfire, if you're going to assert that only Negative Rights matter then carve out exemptions for Positive Rights in drat near every circumstance save rich/poor interactions, I fail to see how thinking of rights in terms of Negative and Positive has any meaning. In your car example, and in the streetcar thought experiment, you are literally making the choice right there in that moment whether to murder someone or not. There's no exception - your finger is on the trigger (lever, wheel, etc) and you are deciding if a person lives. Choosing not to murder that person is not inconsistent with that person having a right not to be murdered, or having an obligation not to murder people, clearly, once you're forced into a situation where those are your two options. TwoQuestions posted:Changing gears, how do you go about convincing someone without compassion of a compassionate solution to a problem? If crime in a nearby city you never visit can be reduced substantially by a $10 million investment in infastructure/law enforcement training/whatever, and this investment is proven to work, how do you convince someone who just says "gently caress those city people! If they can't solve their problems without State help they deserve to die!"? Dunno. Is there literally no benefit to helping out that other community other than the feels?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You're right, I retract my absolute statement. Semantic quibbles are indeed like academic catnip! To reduce this to mathematics, a negative number can always be expressed as a positive number multiplied by negative one. Similarly, to subtract from one group is always to add to another group, and vice-versa. For any statement of rights "X", that right can be expressed as -1*(x), and statement of positive right X imposes some corresponding duty of -X (either on the individual in question or on some other party). An obligation to "refrain from killing" is, inherently, an obligation to take positive action to *avoid* killing. An positive obligation on others to "keep you alive" inherently and necessarily implies a "negative" obligation to refrain from taking actions that would kill you. So on, so forth. My argument is that in reality the implications of those "two rights" are not substantively different -- it's a false distinction. It is merely convenient to believe that the implications are different. In reality, if we accept a "right to not be killed," , then we must, as a matter of logic, acknowledge some basic "right to life", some converse obligation on the part of society generally to support and maintain that life. You say "that way lies madness," but that isn't a logical objection, it's just an acknowledgment that this is a difficult problem with radical implications. The real issue is the extent to which that "right to life" can be or must be weighed against and balanced with everyone else's competing rights. Jean Valjean's sister's child had a fundamental right to life and a right to not starve to death. The baker had a property right to the loaf of bread that Valjean stole. Hugo pointed out this contradiction and the inherent evil that prioritized the baker's property right over the child's life in his novel. The eventual societal compromise that we reached (in America, at least) to resolve this dilemma was to establish public assistance programs, such as food stamps, funded by tax revenue. In other situations the analysis will of course be different, and in some cases (for example, end-of-life health care costs) we're still as a society wrestling to find the best answer. These questions are hard. The "positive/negative rights" fallacy is just a facile trivialization of fundamentally difficult ethical problems. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Dunno. Is there literally no benefit to helping out that other community other than the feels? Absolutely. It's so they don't take what you have by force. When people have enough, they don't (barring mental stability issues) typically commit violent crimes. It's in your best interest to see to it that your neighbors have enough food, education and shelter. Not to mention the old canard of "There but for the grace of God". You are not a special snowflake, no matter what you tell yourself. You may feel invincible, but any number of circumstances could come to pass that would bring you low. In a society that protects the least among us, you can rest easier, knowing that they will catch you if you fall. Which will make getting back up that much easier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:Absolutely. It's so they don't take what you have by force. When people have enough, they don't (barring mental stability issues) typically commit violent crimes. It's in your best interest to see to it that your neighbors have enough food, education and shelter. Additionally, there is an "all boats rise together" element in play. A better-fed, better-educated, better-empowered proletariat would hypothetically be able to increase the speed of social and scientific progress, as the smart-but-downtrodden are able to actually use their skills. All the money and power in the world won't help you if your subjects are uneducated illiterate waifs barely capable of properly plowing a field, much less developing the next great technology. Contrary to the objectivist's belief, the needs of the many generally also fulfill the needs of the few.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:52
|
|
