3 ms·
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 mor
by 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 agoIt'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 agoI think "irrelevant" goes too far, but I concede that the border is fuzzier than I previously thought.
- chongli 11y agoEven 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.