3 ms·

> That's exactly what it means, though... No. I don't think so. As an example: A starving person does not have an inherent right to food. On the other hand, if

> That's exactly what it means, though... No. I don't think so. As an example: A starving person does not have an inherent right to food. On the other hand, if someone has enough to feed his own self, family and then some, one can argue he has a responsibility to assist others who do not have enough. I do not see one to be the same as the other. Positive rights force other people to give you something. Responsibilities, on the other hand, direct you to give to others. Giving is not the same as taking. Responsibilities are also hierarchical and some take precedence over others, and it is up to the person's discretion to decide how and when to fulfill them. Rights, on the other hand, are generally not seen as hierarchical but all-or-nothing. From https://www.unfpa.org/resources/human-rights-principles https://www.unfpa.org/resources/human-rights-principles: "Consequently, all human rights have equal status, and cannot be positioned in a hierarchical order. Denial of one right invariably impedes enjoyment of other rights. Thus, the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living cannot be compromised at the expense of other rights, such as the right to health or the right to education." I can say I probably agree with nothing from the above link, but it at least provides evidence that people do not view positive rights as either hierarchical or at the discretion of the giver. I lastly think it can't be undervalued that giving viewed as a responsibility is more likely to inspire gratitude in the receiver, whereas taking viewed as a right tends to inculcate a demanding and ungrateful spirit in the taker.

analognoise 4y ago
"A starving person does not have an inherent right to food." What kind of psychotic reasoning is this? Of course people have an inherent right to food. I'm not a fan of positive rights either - when it comes to code (I avoid GPL stuff whenever possible). But we aren't all on this planet together so we can deny others food, that's just crazy.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  You did a great job of misinterpreting what I said, but what I said is true and not even remotely psychotic. If anything, your reaction is a little crazy! I would like to note that you had no counterargument. You surely don't have a right to food. You go out and get it yourself! I, on the other hand, have a moral responsibility to share my extra food with those who lack. I base my morality on my belief in God and what he expects of me. I am curious what you base your morality off of. > But we aren't all on this planet together so we can deny others food Speaking of psychotic, How did "I have a responsibility for the poor and needy" get converted in your head to "I am on this planet so I can deny food to others"?
  - analognoise 4y ago
    "You go out and get it yourself!" - Except those who need food frequently can't. Children, the sick, the injured. We take care of these people and have a moral obligation to feed them because they have a right to food. People absolutely have a right to food. A positive right, no less, that can't be denied. People used to get it from "the commons" - since we've enclosed them all to shift to our current modes of...well, everything, we have to replace what people would have gotten from the commons previously and provide it free of charge, as a right to things on this earth that people would have had. Like food. Currently what we do is burn the excess to keep the prices up. We've long since been able to make the food free; we don't and it is immoral (like a good number of our social constructs, imo). No, no religion on my end. I just think it's obvious people have a right to food, like they have a right to clean air, water and shelter.
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      > No, no religion on my end. I am definitely not surprised. Atheists seem to be the loudest about proclaiming positive rights. And, yet, it is within atheist governments where people are least likely to experience these "rights", or even the right to life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism That is no accident. > I just think it's obvious people have a right to food, like they have a right to clean air, water and shelter. That's neat. I can't help but notice you declined to justify this belief. And that's part of the problem. Secular humanism has no foundation. Instead, it relies on the foundations Christianity built. As that erodes, so too will human flourishing in general!

analognoise 4y ago

"A starving person does not have an inherent right to food." What kind of psychotic reasoning is this? Of course people have an inherent right to food. I'm not a fan of positive rights either - when it comes to code (I avoid GPL stuff whenever possible). But we aren't all on this planet together so we can deny others food, that's just crazy.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
You did a great job of misinterpreting what I said, but what I said is true and not even remotely psychotic. If anything, your reaction is a little crazy! I would like to note that you had no counterargument. You surely don't have a right to food. You go out and get it yourself! I, on the other hand, have a moral responsibility to share my extra food with those who lack. I base my morality on my belief in God and what he expects of me. I am curious what you base your morality off of. > But we aren't all on this planet together so we can deny others food Speaking of psychotic, How did "I have a responsibility for the poor and needy" get converted in your head to "I am on this planet so I can deny food to others"?
- analognoise 4y ago
  "You go out and get it yourself!" - Except those who need food frequently can't. Children, the sick, the injured. We take care of these people and have a moral obligation to feed them because they have a right to food. People absolutely have a right to food. A positive right, no less, that can't be denied. People used to get it from "the commons" - since we've enclosed them all to shift to our current modes of...well, everything, we have to replace what people would have gotten from the commons previously and provide it free of charge, as a right to things on this earth that people would have had. Like food. Currently what we do is burn the excess to keep the prices up. We've long since been able to make the food free; we don't and it is immoral (like a good number of our social constructs, imo). No, no religion on my end. I just think it's obvious people have a right to food, like they have a right to clean air, water and shelter.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    > No, no religion on my end. I am definitely not surprised. Atheists seem to be the loudest about proclaiming positive rights. And, yet, it is within atheist governments where people are least likely to experience these "rights", or even the right to life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism That is no accident. > I just think it's obvious people have a right to food, like they have a right to clean air, water and shelter. That's neat. I can't help but notice you declined to justify this belief. And that's part of the problem. Secular humanism has no foundation. Instead, it relies on the foundations Christianity built. As that erodes, so too will human flourishing in general!