| | In ethics there are no "positive rights" - there are claims that it is valid to use the word "right" with the modifier "positive" in front of it. But the truth is that you can not have a right that violates a right - no matter what adjective goes in front of it. Dr. Machan's article uses the phrase "positive rights" but only to point out that it isn't valid - he uses some other adjectives to make that point, like "supposed right" and there is, "alleged right."
We should always attack the use of the term "positive rights" since they aren't rights at all. And we should reject the use of the phrase "negative rights" as unnecessary and implying the existence of positive rights.
I particularly liked his observation that the alleged positive rights could not be applied to all humans. That tells us that they don't arise out of human nature.
Near the end of his article he mentions the rights that arise out of contract - those would be legal rights. And all rights that are conferred by law are entirely different category. All law, to the degree that it is moral, arises from ethical rights. When an alleged legal right conflicts with a natural right (or one could say "individual right" or "ethical right" or "human right"), given knowledge's hierarchical structure, we toss out the legal right as invalid.
Often the first question to ask about some argument concerning "rights" isn't if it is a valid ethical right, or a valid application of a right, but rather is the argument being consistent in using the word "right" in either the field of law or the field of ethics, or is the initial problem that they aren't.
I enjoyed the article.
|
|
