9 ms·

"deprive of" is not a synonym for "not provide". It's completely consistent to say that you have an obligation not to actively hinder someone someone from obtai

by evanpw 11y ago

"deprive of" is not a synonym for "not provide". It's completely consistent to say that you have an obligation not to actively hinder someone someone from obtaining food/shelter/etc., but no obligation to provide it to them. Stealing someone's lunch is generally considered worse than not giving them your lunch.

chongli 11y ago
"deprive of" is not a synonym for "not provide" This distinction falls apart when you include the notion of privately owned land. If you are born into a world where all land is owned by someone else, what choice do you have but to either work for your food or steal it? What if nobody permits you to work for them?
- evanpw 11y ago
  This is exactly the kind of problem that framing your ethical system in terms of "rights" tends to obscure (I'm more of a utilitarian). I think that you are morally justified in stealing to keep yourself from starving, and at the same time, every individual land owner (if they obtained their land by legitimate means) is morally justified in not hiring you to work for them. There doesn't need to be a moral winner and moral loser in every situation. I only support property "rights" because I think they lead to better overall welfare in the world-that-is. If in some future state of the world they turn out to be harmful on net, then I have no qualms with saying that we should scrap them.
  - chongli 11y ago
    It's not my ethical system. My original point is that the distinction between positive and negative rights is irrelevant. Throughout this whole discussion I've seen examples by different people which seem to bear that out.
    - evanpw 11y ago
      I think "irrelevant" goes too far, but I concede that the border is fuzzier than I previously thought.
      - chongli 11y ago
        Even the most simple, basic, negative right to not be killed flies out the window if you just kill somebody and then ask the question "now what?" Well, without positive rights, the answer is "not much". These terms have plenty of meaning in the abstract but no direct real world applicability. Their main use seems to be rhetorical: specifically by ideologues who support the status quo while denying a status quo bias.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> It's completely consistent to say that you have an obligation not to actively hinder someone someone from obtaining food/shelter/etc., but no obligation to provide it to them. Preventing someone from making use of food and shelter that exists is actively depriving them of it. If there is a (negative) right to freedom from interference with the acquisition of food/shelter/etc., it conflicts with the (positive) right to exercise exclusive dominion over particular items as "property".

by evanpw 11y ago

chongli 11y ago

"deprive of" is not a synonym for "not provide" This distinction falls apart when you include the notion of privately owned land. If you are born into a world where all land is owned by someone else, what choice do you have but to either work for your food or steal it? What if nobody permits you to work for them?

evanpw 11y ago
This is exactly the kind of problem that framing your ethical system in terms of "rights" tends to obscure (I'm more of a utilitarian). I think that you are morally justified in stealing to keep yourself from starving, and at the same time, every individual land owner (if they obtained their land by legitimate means) is morally justified in not hiring you to work for them. There doesn't need to be a moral winner and moral loser in every situation. I only support property "rights" because I think they lead to better overall welfare in the world-that-is. If in some future state of the world they turn out to be harmful on net, then I have no qualms with saying that we should scrap them.
- chongli 11y ago
  It's not my ethical system. My original point is that the distinction between positive and negative rights is irrelevant. Throughout this whole discussion I've seen examples by different people which seem to bear that out.
  - evanpw 11y ago
    I think "irrelevant" goes too far, but I concede that the border is fuzzier than I previously thought.
    - chongli 11y ago
      Even the most simple, basic, negative right to not be killed flies out the window if you just kill somebody and then ask the question "now what?" Well, without positive rights, the answer is "not much". These terms have plenty of meaning in the abstract but no direct real world applicability. Their main use seems to be rhetorical: specifically by ideologues who support the status quo while denying a status quo bias.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> It's completely consistent to say that you have an obligation not to actively hinder someone someone from obtaining food/shelter/etc., but no obligation to provide it to them. Preventing someone from making use of food and shelter that exists is actively depriving them of it. If there is a (negative) right to freedom from interference with the acquisition of food/shelter/etc., it conflicts with the (positive) right to exercise exclusive dominion over particular items as "property".