4 ms·
Human rights was originally conceived of as negative rights, e.g. you have the right to pursue happiness in the same way as I do. Negative rights is a sign of f
by asabjorn 8y ago
Human rights was originally conceived of as negative rights, e.g. you have the right to pursue happiness in the same way as I do. Negative rights is a sign of freedom, and positive rights are a sign of the opposite because they infringe upon others freedom by obligating them to fulfill your rights.
The UN has expanded this greatly to positive rights where someone can obligate someone to do something as a right, e.g. you have no right to offend my beliefs.
In general this development is a step towards more centralization, and it is a sign of the central weakness of any centralized system which is that its limited in what it can express by the biological limitations of people that run it.
- mistrial9 8y ago.. if you want to convince people of this, I suggest you review your use of 'positive' and 'negative' .. anyway, its not nearly as clear cut as you make it out there.
- asabjorn 8y agoThe way I describe it is conformant with the official definition of positive and negative rights: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
- zeckalpha 8y agoThat is the definition sure. But that’s not the definition you’re using.
- asabjorn 8y agoFrom the link: "Negative and positive rights are rights that oblige either action (positive rights) or inaction (negative rights)". How is it different?
- ploxiln 8y ago> The UN has expanded this greatly to positive rights where someone can obligate someone to do something as a right, e.g. you have no right to offend my beliefs. that's obliging inaction - it obliges someone to not say or do something which offends you - so it is a negative right
- gdogw1 8y agoYou're wrong. Enforcing someone to refrain is exactly what he's talking about. You are asking someone to do something if you are asking them to refrain from speaking, as it's their liberty to speak.
- ploxiln 8y ago> Enforcing someone to refrain is exactly what he's talking about and is exactly the definition of negative rights. right there. that's the definition. that's it. Now, you're saying that because "right to not be offended" is a bad idea, and you don't agree with it, that makes it a positive right. But your opinion of it does not matter to the definition. The definition of "positive right" would be requiring someone else to, say, stand when you enter the room, or always address you as "sir" because you're knighted. Let me also clarify that I very much dislike any "right to not be offended" and also that these definitions of "positive rights" and "negative rights" is clearly not very useful.
- asabjorn 8y agoThe reason why the right to not be offended is a positive right is that I am obliged to find out what might offend you, which is impossible when speaking to a large crowd, and if there is a need to express something along the same ideas I am forced to express it as you would or not at all. Eg if you believe everything is a social construct I can’t express what I think is influenced by biology if it offends your beliefs. However, you are correct that the line can be blurry and right in general should be granted with great caution.
- zeckalpha 8y agoNegative rights also “infringe” on others freedom in the same way you describe: they limit what others can do. The “oblige others to inaction”. The trade off is they (usually) get the same protections.
- pdabbadabba 8y agoYeah. There's something right about this line of thought, I think, but it could use a bit more development. A big part of the conceptual problem is that the distinction between positive and negative rights is much less clear than people often assume. GP highlighted a pretty good example: "you have no right to offend my beliefs." It's a positive right if you call it a "right to go through life without being offended" but negative if phrased as "you have a right not to be the object of offensive conduct." And often, preventing something from happening (i.e., enforcing a negative right) may impose some sort of affirmative obligation, or impose seemingly objectionable restrictions, on others. One somewhat fruitful way to untangle this can be to add another distinction between acts of the state and acts of private citizens. Thus, under the U.S. constitution, for example, one typically has negative rights against some state action or other (e.g., :"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.")
- asabjorn 8y ago"you have a right not to be the object of offensive conduct." is not a negative right, because the one that has to oblige to act upon it is not the one with the right. Not only that, for you to have that right the other person is obliged to figure out what might offend you which is quite an impossible requirement when speaking to a large crowd.
- vertex-four 8y ago“You have a right not to be murdered” is also not a negative right, then.
- asabjorn 8y agoI don’t have to do anything to figure out if I should murder you or not. It’s just wrong and there are only two options. However, I have to do something active to be obliged to not offend your beliefs as there are as many sets of beliefs that might offend as there are people. And what offends one might please another. Big difference.
- isostatic 8y agoThe right to free speech is a 'negative right' However countries like the U.S. have restrictions on those rights -- e.g. shouting fire in a crowded theatre, because society accepts that actions have consequences, and there's always a balance. You have the right to swing your fist, but not to hit me. You have the right to eat food, but not if it's in my cupboard. You have freedom to move, but not across private land (or borders).