Positive Rights
Sarah Langford
Dr. Radzik
PHIL 111-200
11 December 2015
I. Negative Rights v. Positive Rights
Traditionally, it is believed that negative duties are more important and less demanding than positive rights. However, Edith Lichtenberg challenges this view by showing that not all negative duties are as easy to keep and that they may not always take priority over positive duties.
Negative duties are duties of non-interference, which correspond with a right of non-interference, meaning one party’s duty is to not interfere with a party that has the right of non-interference. Likewise, a positive duty is where one owes certain goods and services to someone that has the right to said goods and services. Typically, negative duties tend to be something …show more content…
In this example there are two men, Smith and Jones, whose situations are practical mirror images of one another. They both have a young cousin who is to be the heir of a large inheritance, and if this child were to die, they would each be the inheritors. Both men plan to kill this cousin by drowning him in the bath tub and positioning things to make it appear to be an accident. The only difference in their cases is that Smith successfully kills his cousin, while Jones’ cousin hits his head, slips under the water, and drowns on his own before Jones can murder him. Rachels goes on to point out that although Jones simply watched the child die and did not interfere, he in no way is less guilty than Smith. Both men had the same evil intentions and both had their end-goal achieved. In the end, he shows that letting one die is an action in itself (Rachels 78-80). Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a famous theologian and key figure in the resistance to German Nazism, once said, “…Not to act is to act” (“Dietrich Bonhoeffer Quotes"). This statement holds true for how Rachels feels about Jones’ case; although, he did not physically drown his cousin, by not doing anything to save his life, he chose death for the
Dr. Radzik
PHIL 111-200
11 December 2015
I. Negative Rights v. Positive Rights
Traditionally, it is believed that negative duties are more important and less demanding than positive rights. However, Edith Lichtenberg challenges this view by showing that not all negative duties are as easy to keep and that they may not always take priority over positive duties.
Negative duties are duties of non-interference, which correspond with a right of non-interference, meaning one party’s duty is to not interfere with a party that has the right of non-interference. Likewise, a positive duty is where one owes certain goods and services to someone that has the right to said goods and services. Typically, negative duties tend to be something …show more content…
In this example there are two men, Smith and Jones, whose situations are practical mirror images of one another. They both have a young cousin who is to be the heir of a large inheritance, and if this child were to die, they would each be the inheritors. Both men plan to kill this cousin by drowning him in the bath tub and positioning things to make it appear to be an accident. The only difference in their cases is that Smith successfully kills his cousin, while Jones’ cousin hits his head, slips under the water, and drowns on his own before Jones can murder him. Rachels goes on to point out that although Jones simply watched the child die and did not interfere, he in no way is less guilty than Smith. Both men had the same evil intentions and both had their end-goal achieved. In the end, he shows that letting one die is an action in itself (Rachels 78-80). Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a famous theologian and key figure in the resistance to German Nazism, once said, “…Not to act is to act” (“Dietrich Bonhoeffer Quotes"). This statement holds true for how Rachels feels about Jones’ case; although, he did not physically drown his cousin, by not doing anything to save his life, he chose death for the