2 ms·

That's why rights can be broken down into two kinds: positive rights (which entail an obligation on somebody else's part to do something) and negative rights (w

That's why rights can be broken down into two kinds: positive rights (which entail an obligation on somebody else's part to do something) and negative rights (which only entail an obligation on somebody else's part not to do something to you): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights. The nice thing about negative rights is they generally don't conflict, and freedom from unwanted medical treatment is a negative right.

perpetualpatzer 6y ago
If I understand the distinction correctly, my freedom of religion example is a conflict between two negative rights (the prohibition on preventing a religious practitioner's worship versus the prohibition on taking the unwilling virgin's life). Extended to unwanted medical treatment... imagine Joe CRISPR'ed himself a gene that improved his eyesight, but also caused him to emit bromine gas that kills 90% of people who come within 100 feet of him. To date, Joe has killed thousands of people with his gas cloud. Society might rightly deem that he was infringing on their right to life and that that negative right was more important than Joe's negative right not to be forced into the reversing medical procedure. Somewhere on the spectrum between "bromine gas cloud" and "germs for the sniffles", there's probably a condition Joe could have for which Joe's right to avoid unwanted medial treatment and society's right to not be needlessly kiled are really evenly balanced. Maybe it's ebola. Maybe it's covid... or measels, or the seasonal flu. The right not to be forced into medical treatments is important and should be talked about, but to cast it as a right and therefore unconditioned and inviolate is to dodge the important societal debate.
- swiley 6y ago
  > emit bromine gas Wouldn’t that require some kind of nuclear reaction/alchemy? I don’t think anything humans are normally exposed to contains bromine.

perpetualpatzer 6y ago

If I understand the distinction correctly, my freedom of religion example is a conflict between two negative rights (the prohibition on preventing a religious practitioner's worship versus the prohibition on taking the unwilling virgin's life). Extended to unwanted medical treatment... imagine Joe CRISPR'ed himself a gene that improved his eyesight, but also caused him to emit bromine gas that kills 90% of people who come within 100 feet of him. To date, Joe has killed thousands of people with his gas cloud. Society might rightly deem that he was infringing on their right to life and that that negative right was more important than Joe's negative right not to be forced into the reversing medical procedure. Somewhere on the spectrum between "bromine gas cloud" and "germs for the sniffles", there's probably a condition Joe could have for which Joe's right to avoid unwanted medial treatment and society's right to not be needlessly kiled are really evenly balanced. Maybe it's ebola. Maybe it's covid... or measels, or the seasonal flu. The right not to be forced into medical treatments is important and should be talked about, but to cast it as a right and therefore unconditioned and inviolate is to dodge the important societal debate.

swiley 6y ago
> emit bromine gas Wouldn’t that require some kind of nuclear reaction/alchemy? I don’t think anything humans are normally exposed to contains bromine.