‘Where negative rights are “negative” in the sense that they claim for each individual a zone of non-interference from others, positive rights are “positive” in the sense that they claim for each individual the positive assistance of others in fulfilling basic constituents of well-being like health.’

‘Negative rights are considered more essential than positive ones in protecting an individual’s autonomy.’

So when one individual’s positive right to do something is at odds with another’s negative right to protect them from something, as much as it would be ideal for both parties to have exactly what they want without harming or inconveniencing/upsetting the other, since that’s often not possible, the negative right to ‘protect’ an individual from something seems to trump the positive right for an individual to ‘do’ something in hierarchy of moral importance and most ethicists seem to agree.

For example, I think people’s ‘positive right’ to choose animal-based product or service options when there are equally suitable plant-based options that achieve all the same purposes, isn’t as important as sentient animals’ negative right to not be unnecessarily exploited and killed, and to be protected from those undesirable experiences, states or conditions. Hence the position of veganism is very clear and obvious for me, and resolves an “easy” ethical issue with a clear solution (essential negative (protective) right prevails over others’ ultimately unnecessary positive (“doing”) right).

When it comes to abortion however, I do believe that it’s a tricky situation ethically. I’m pro-choice, but I say that with difficulty, because considering both sides it’s not an easy position and I see it as much more ethically complex than the issue of unnecessary animal exploitation. That’s because I think you can make the argument that either forcing a person to undergo pregnancy, or terminating the life of an (admittedly unconscious, undeveloped) fetus, are in both cases breaching a sentient (or would-be sentient) individual’s negative (protective) right. It would seem to be a clear ethical dilemma, where neither outcome is desirable, in almost comparably important ways. However, ultimately I had to decide that protecting a woman/person from an enforced pregnancy (and the physical and life-changing, even life destroying (or killing) effects, results and experiences that can have), a person being a fully formed, conscious and sentient individual, is more tangibly important than protecting an undeveloped, unconscious “mass of cells” from being prevented from developing into a human being.

My thoughts on the matter aside… It seems like in one way the right to abortion is a positive right by claiming assistance from others to “do” something being terminate a pregnancy, while in another way it’s a negative right by “protecting” the person via preventing undesirable states and experiences that would be imposed on them by others ‘interfering’ and forcing them to undergo pregnancy, by denying them an abortion.

I’m honestly just wondering what kind right this would be considered. Positive right or negative right? Or both? Thanks :)

  • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
    40·
    1 year ago

    When it comes to abortion however, I do believe that it’s a tricky situation ethically. I’m pro-choice, but I say that with difficulty, because considering both sides it’s not an easy position and I see it as much more ethically complex than the issue of unnecessary animal exploitation. That’s because I think you can make the argument that either forcing a person to undergo pregnancy, or terminating the life of an (admittedly unconscious, undeveloped) fetus, are in both cases breaching a sentient (or would-be sentient) individual’s negative (protective) right.

    I’m going to answer this, because if we remove the ethical dilemma you have everything else is meaningless.

    The right to bodily autonomy is essentially absolute in most people’s moral compass, let’s give an example: imagine a fully grown adult was in a car accident, completely out of his control, he lost a lot of blood and his kidneys were damaged, you are a match to him, and he will 100% die unless you donate blood and one kidney, in that scenario: should the government be able to force you to donate your kidney and blood?

    There is no question that the person will die if you don’t, there is no doubt the person is a human being, there’s no doubt you’ll survive the procedure and live a normal life afterwards, yet the vast majority of people would agree that the government should not be able to force you, because we recognise that a person’s right to their own body triumphs over other people’s right to that person’s body. Applying the same logic to a Fetus is straightforward, even if it was a person, it wouldn’t have a higher right to your body than you do, there’s no moral dilemma there just like there isn’t one in the kidney situation.

    In the unlikely event that you think the government should in fact be able to force you to donate your kidney, it means you value life above bodily autonomy, the logical next step is that as long as it saves more than one life it’s okay for the government to kill you, e.g. if your heart and lungs are compatible with two people who will die without them, then it should kill you to get them because obviously saving two lives is better than saving one.