more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
There are rights to non-interference (and their corresponding "negative duties"), and the rights to goods and services (with corresponding "positive duties"). Interference usually needs more justification than withholding goods.
Gist of Idea
The right of non-interference (with a 'negative duty'), and the right to goods/services ('positive')
Source
Philippa Foot (Killing and Letting Die [1985], p.82)
Book Ref
Foot,Philippa: 'Moral Dilemmas' [OUP 2002], p.82
A Reaction
This invites the question of which is the stronger, and whether paternalism can overrule non-interference, or an expectation of self-sufficiency overrule the positive rights.
4692 | It is not true that killing and allowing to die (or acts and omissions) are morally indistinguishable [Foot] |
4693 | The right of non-interference (with a 'negative duty'), and the right to goods/services ('positive') [Foot] |
4694 | Making a runaway tram kill one person instead of five is diverting a fatal sequence, not initiating one [Foot] |