3 ms·
Where would you put something like "the human right not to be murdered"? On the one hand, it cannot be infringed unless there is someone else there to infringe
by MereInterest 6y ago
Where would you put something like "the human right not to be murdered"? On the one hand, it cannot be infringed unless there is someone else there to infringe it. On the other hand, if you exist within any society (the default position of all human beings throughout history), then this right requires active protection to maintain.
Overall, I don't think it is a useful distinction to make. For either type of human right, there are cooperative agreements needed in order to maintain those rights.
- fastball 6y agoHuh? Right not to be murdered is right to life, which is exactly the same as freedom of speech. You have it unless someone else infringes on it. Those are very different from healthcare, which is not something you have unless it is infringed. Healthcare needs to be actively provided for you. When you can very clearly put all "rights" into one of the two buckets, it's pretty clear there is a real distinction.
- MereInterest 6y agoThe point I am trying to make is that all rights, positive or negative, require social structures to maintain and protect. There isn't a point in comparing to some Hobbesian wilderness as the blank canvas on which society is drawn, because there never has been such a situation. So long as there have been humans, there has been human society, because that is what makes us human. Therefore, pretending that rights start from a perspective of a single human adrift in the wilderness is an poor starting point.
- fastball 6y agoAlthough "do you have this thing when alone on island" is a good test for determining which sort of right you're talking about, that is not the reason to make a distinction. The reason you make a distinction is because the two kinds need to be handled in different ways, and that is harder to do if you are constantly conflating them.