4 ms·
Yeah. 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 di
by pdabbadabba 8y ago
Yeah. 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.
- pdabbadabba 8y agoTotally correct! But this doesn't have to do with whether these are positive or negative rights. It just highlights the fact that some negative rights are more easily understood and applied than others.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]