humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <2573759d-7d56-4638-9d3b-b3454d72d6d6
@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, cbell97@bellsouth.net says...
> On Feb 25, 11:36 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> >  She begins the essay by speaking of
> > "individual rights" in the first sentence.  
>
> Yes, and "individual rights" (positive) are not political-legal rights
> (negative).,

Rand is not talking about positive tights, and neither am I. She begins
by using "individual rights" in a clearly approving way, while it is
clear that she does not accept the notion of positive rights.

> She always keeps "rights" (of negative obligations, as in
> "no right to . . .") and the meaning of "obligations" itself well
> *within* the context of (by contrast to) the moral right to life
> (positive as in "a right to . . .") -- something that you and Prescott
> cannot do.

Prescott and I can at least write clearly. The phrase "rights of
negative obligations" makes no sense. Rand is not saying that negative
obligations have rights; she says that the right of one imposes a
negative obligation on others. Nor does your "*within* the context of
(by contrast to)" make the slightest sense. I invite anyone in this
group to take a crack at deciphering it. Furthermore, Rand does not
think that the right to life is a positive right, if that is what you
are trying to say. Positive rights are welfare rights, rights to be
provided with something - rights that Rand clearly rejects. For Rand,
the "right to life" is *not* a positive right.

But, since it is the parentheticals that are confusing, let's try
removing them.

> She always keeps "rights" and the meaning of "obligations" itself well
> *within* the context of the moral right to life
> -- something that you and Prescott
> cannot do.

I have no problem keeping within that context - it's one of my
favorites.

> > 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.  
>
>
> ... two paragraphs later, for the first and only time.

So you are saying that it was a typo? She slipped up? She didn't mean
what she said? She needed a better editor? What, exactly, is your
point? That we should scratch that sentence out because it makes hash
of your interpretation?

> She repeats
> several times that what "rights" are in a social (of political
> obligations) sense is *not* the same thing as moral rights
> (principles, including that of no unchosen obligations or duty).

Where does she say this? I am very good about page numbers - why don't
you give it a try?

> "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a
> man's freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men."
>
> Got that?

Yes, and, as I have explained, she was implicitly referring to positive
obligations when she said this, not negative ones. Unchosen positive
obligations are clearly rejected by Rand, but not negative ones, as the
key sentence shows. My explanation makes sense of *all* of her text -
yours implies that she screwed up one of her most important essays.

> Shall I repeat it?

No, you should take your medicine.

--
Gordon