humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <39be0ae7-9e40-4197-b96c-95311410fdb8@
71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, cbell97@bellsouth.net says...

> 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).

This is wrong from the start. She begins the essay by speaking of
"individual rights" in the first sentence. On page 93, last paragraph,
she states, "There is only one fundamental right...: a man's right to
his own life. She then states that rights impose negative obligations.
All this is done without any mention of "political-legal" rights.
...
> Negative obligations means doing nothing. One cannot be forced to do
> nothing in a political-legal sense.

What nonsense. The term "negative obligations" does not refer to "doing
nothing" as if no actions are available, but rather to obligations which
do not impose actions but restrain them. As to what one "can" be forced
to do, you continue to confuse power with right. Whether a person can
be forced comply with a negative obligation not to interfere with the
right to life of another is immaterial to the existence of that right
and the associated negative obligation.

Try writing, "A right is not a power" one thousand times. It might
help.
...
> At no time does Rand ever suggest that negative obligations are
> unchosen obligations as they actually involve an individual doing
> nothing;

This is more confused nonsense. Rand says that the negative obligation
is imposed by the right, and the "fundamental right" is the right to
life. A person does not have a right to life because others choose to
give him one - that is basic to Rand's view.

> he is "obliged" to do nothing in defined circumstances (e.g.,
> not murder, not steal, etc);

You can put "obliged" in quotes to save face if you like - Rand is clear
that an obligation not to interfere is imposed.

> 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.

Well, duh. We have been discussing negative obligations, not positive
rights. Obviously, Rand rejects positive rights, and so do I.

--
Gordon