humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 28, 10:01 am, Jim Klein wrote:

> If those negative obligations aren't any sort of duty, then what are
> they and why does it matter to you?
>
> Maybe both sides are guilty of over-precision where it doesn't belong.
> Surely "a kind of negative obligation" (is that how she put it?)

No she did not. She calls a "right" a means to define freedom of
action. A right from "an obligation of negative kind" [her words]
merely means no action at all, or no obligation to act, or an
obligation not to act.


> doesn't imply very much,

No, it does not. Sollars, however, elevates it to an thing called a
"negative obligation" that is not a duty but must be done in any case,
even though it literally means doing nothing. This is meaningless
unless it can be stretched, contrary to Objectivism, into either a
duty (even though it does not actually exist, it matters that we think
it exists) or into some metaphysical limitation on freedom of
action. .