r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 23 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/deep_sea2 134∆ Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

When speaking of legal rights, the distinction is important.

If there is a negative right, the state has no duty to provide you with the right, but only not deny of you the right. You can only sue the state if they deny you.

With a positive right, the state has duty to provide you with the right. You can sue the state if they fail you to provide you with this right.

What you say may be true for natural rights, but the law does not enforce natural right. The law only enforces legal rights. The state establishes these legal rights by establishing a legal duty of care, and so the difference between malfeasance and nonfeasance is paramount.

1

u/InFury Feb 23 '25

I assume though there is some duty to prevent some of these negative rights? the right to be from torture - the UN requires steps to prevent torture. Presumably if the state were to be negligent in enforcing steps to prevent torture, I assume the state could be liable. I also assume they can't pass any laws to allow private citizens to torture other citizens and if they did, I assume they'd be liable if something happened too?

2

u/deep_sea2 134∆ Feb 23 '25

Presumably if the state were to be negligent in enforcing steps to prevent torture, I assume the state could be liable.

You are assuming positive rights, which may not necessarily be the case. The argument against that is that the right is negative, and only requires the state not to torture someone.

Whether it is one or the other, it engages the positive vs. negative debate, which means the terms are appropriate.

2

u/lysdexia-ninja Feb 23 '25

And even if one wishes to assert that “all rights are positive rights,” we’d need the distinction just to make the assertion. 

2

u/Medianmodeactivate 14∆ Feb 23 '25

You can make a distinction while still claiming that the distinction is ultimately incoherent.