 |
| Replies |
 Ann (main path) |
 Dee |
Ann |
 Ayesha |
| Positive Rights |
| John
Speaking
|
 I agree
that the distinction between positive and negative rights is extremely
important for political philosophy.
I also agree with Ayesha that formal liberty without the means to act is often worthless. This will very often be true for the poor.But it seems to me that we can make some plausible arguments for positive rights as a way of overcoming the limitations of a purely negative liberty. Philosopher Lawrence Haworth suggests that our most fundamental value is what some have called an "autonomous" life -- a life filled with autonomous activity. He argues, against libertarianism, that it is not liberty per se that is desirable, but "liberty autonomously exercised." He makes a similar argument against utilitarianism. Happiness is not desirable in itself, but only as part of an autonomous life. [Haworth, p. 139] If autonomy is our most fundamental value, then it seems to me that society ought to be organized to foster it. And autonomy requires more than non-interference (the negative rights Dee advocates). It requires that each person be provided with certain basics that the normal person needs in order to develop into an autonomous person. That's where positive rights come in. Health care, education, and work, for example, are just the sorts of things that are needed to become an autonomous person. See Autonomy by L. Haworth. QUOTE. |
| Ariadne's Home | Contact Ariadne at: | Justice Home |
| Justice Bibliography |  |
Justice Contents |
|
||