More Ron Bashing

[reverendjeremiah]

Quite simply, because there are no natural (negative) rights to healthcare, food, or education. All these things are positive rights (i.e. a right that does not exist until it is created by a contract). Negative rights (such as the right to life) cover things that are natural to all people, such as the right to life, free speech, expression, etc.

Or to use Wikipedia's comparison: "positive rights permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction".

See what I mean. There are no "natural" rights to food or health. But a right to life is "natural" and therefore logical, thus it is inherent, thus the right to life is a universal moral.


So do plants and other animals also have this right to life? Or is the right to life only universally inherent with humans?

By the way, how is eating NOT just as natural of a "right" as living...seeing as one must eat in order to live?

Please explain how living is a natural right, yet eating is a "positive" right. Explain on how someone can sustain their "right to life" without killing to make food.

For someone who claims to be a moral nihilist, you sure do argue morality with words such as "natural", "rights", and "logical".

Its becoming very clear that you are not keen to what nihilism really means. You are clearly a moral universalist, as clear as the sun is in the sky. You are claiming natural and logical arguments fore morality. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of a moral nihilist.