humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <6459ad79-ebd7-4540-b374-
1dab5077eeca@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, cbell97@bellsouth.net
says...
> On Feb 29, 9:31 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > > This justification of my
> > > interpretation is that Rand repeatedly says that there are no unchosen
> > > obligations and she never divides obligations into two different
> > > sorts; those that would be unchosen -- taken, even mistakenly, as a
> > > duty -- and those  that are chosen.
> >
> > She divides them into "negative" and "positive" on page 94 -
>
> No she does not. She refers to moral right as a *positive* right (to
> freedom) -- something which you denied earlier.

I did not deny anything of the sort. I denied that she accepted the
notion of "positive rights" as shown by the list of such she gives on
page 96.

She does not refer to
> anything as "positive obligation" any where in her writings.

Stop being a weasel. Here is the part you cut:

unless you
you now want to claim that "positive" is not the opposite of "negative".

I did not say that she used the term "positive obligation" - I said the
use of "obligations of a negative kind" implies a contrast with
"obligations of a positive kind". Ask any English speaker.
...
> > It can mean without choice, as I explained already:
>
> Not according to Objectivism. "There are no unchosen obligations" is
> repeated over and over again.

Either she meant to refer to positive obligations - which makes sense
given her brief against altruism, as I explained in another post - or
she was being inconsistent. Take you pick.

--
Gordon