I am a strong supporter of the distinction between negative and positive rights (Wikipedia page) — negative rights means rights to not have bad things done to one — essentially freedom from various forms of coercion. Positive rights are essentially entitlements — the right to housing, health care, and education being some examples.
I also think that the best route to a fair and prosperous society is the strong respect for negative rights over and above positive rights. While I don’t take a rigid stance against positive rights, and I also acknowledge some of the boundary cases, such as property rights, which are not, strictly speaking, negative rights, but have been very essential to the growth and prosperity of societies (see The Mystery of Capital by Hernando de Soto, for instance). I view positive rights as important at the aspirational level and at the level of judging how well a society is doing — but in my opinion, their codification into law, and their conflation with negative rights, creates more problems than it solves.
Others have spilled more ink (and pixels) on the distinction, and I link to some pieces below:
-
The origin of human rights by Amit Varma (originally appeared here).
-
Saving rights theory from its friends by Tom Palmer. More of Palmer’s writings are available here.
Interesting. Apparently some Hindus have expressed disapproval of some human-rights positions on religious freedom, since they want not the right to preach but the right not to be preached at. But I’m sure this isn’t even barely what you were thinking of.
Comment by S — January 1, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
[...] kill, don’t steal, and don’t inflict direct pain or hurt on others, i.e., a respect for negative rights. Negative rights ethics roughly correspond to what is typically covered under criminal law (though [...]
Pingback by A three-tiered view of ethics, and Singer’s dilemma « Thinking Beyond Competition — January 21, 2011 @ 12:24 am