humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 25, 9:58 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article > 28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com>, cbel...@bellsouth.net says...
>
> > I point out that when
> > Rand said there is no such thing as unchosen obligations she said that
> > there is no such thing as unchosen obligations.
>
> I point out that you evaded the argument.   She *also* said that rights
> impose negative obligations.  The two statements must be reconciled - I
> can do it, you cannot.


In /Man's Rights/ she speaks of political-legal rights imposing
negative obligations (which mean basically doing nothing), not of the
moral right to life (natural rights). The moral right to life allows
one to choose his politics and ultimately his adherence to the legal
rights. That choice is never taken away by others; a man never loses
his natural rights and can choose at any time under circumstance to do
as he wishes.

Negative obligations means doing nothing. One cannot be forced to do
nothing in a political-legal sense.

In /Man's Rights/ in VOS she has already moved on in the discussion to
legal rights and their meaning in a POLITICAL CONTEXT in negative
obligations. Some natural-rights theorists refer to negative rights
(original liberal) and positive rights (progressive liberal). Rand's
negative obligations are definitely contrary to any positive rights.
She is consistent to a tee in that she attaches these political-legal
rights to obligations which can be chosen and not imposed, as would
positive rights be imposed, that is, forced . For example, a non-
smoker has a positive right not to be in the presence of a smoker,
therefore the smoker must be forcibly removed. Rand would say that a
smoker has an (negative) obligation *not* to do something which might
harm a nonsmoker by forcing him to smoke when he does not choose to.
Where the law ought to stand in this negative obligation is based on
the moral right to life: property rights. So long as the smoker does
*not* invade the property of a nonsmoker to even inadvertently force
him to smoke, then the nonsmoker cannot complain legally of a
"perpetrator" who has not actually done anything.

At no time does Rand ever suggest that negative obligations are
unchosen obligations as they actually involve an individual doing
nothing; he is "obliged" to do nothing in defined circumstances (e.g.,
not murder, not steal, etc); he is not involuntarily forced to accept
an obligation to *do* something (e.g., serve in the military). or to
accept imposition of "positive rights" such as provide food and
housing for someone else.