<The fundamental truth of the categorical imperative is that it is incompatible with any positive right.>
You are absolutely wrong. Do you misinterpret everything in terms of Libertarian philosophy?
"Act only on those rules of action that you could will to be universal laws."
Again, the Categorical Imperative is a rule for testing rules of conduct. It will exclude as immoral any rule of conduct that implies that one person may do something but another, in relevantly similar circumstances, may not. In other words, it demands consistency. What's all right for me is all right for you if our relevant circumstances are similar. If I may throw my toxic waste into the river to save money for myself, then you may do so likewise. But of course I would not want you to do that, so it would be wrong for me.
This is relevant to human rights, because we think of human rights as universally applicable to human beings. And Kant says that what is morally permissible applies to all rational beings. It is also relevant that this test tends to endorse rules of action that protect our most basic interests, just the sorts of things that rights protect.
I could not endorse a rule that outlaws a particular religion because, if the rule were generalized, the religion I favor could be outlawed as well.
A second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is also important:
"Always act so as to treat humanity (rational beings) as an end, never as a means only."
The point is that human beings, understood as beings capable of reasoning about their choices, are inherently valuable and worthy of respect for this reason. This sets strict limits upon what we are morally permitted to do to them, at least under normal circumstances.
It can also be used to defend securing for human beings what they need in order to functional as rational beings.
That's the part you don't get Wildstar because you have dogmatically locked yourself into that Libertarian Philosophy of yours.
To respect human beings as an end is to respect their interests in being protected against grievous harm. (Harm is understood as loss or non-possession of the goods that fulfill vital human needs.)
I can list at least five vital needs that are common to all human beings. If these needs were not met at a basic level, we could not function as rational beings. They are security, subsistence, freedom, equality, and recognition.
Human rights, in a nutshell, are the entitlements we have in these five areas. This approach helps explain the list of human rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations (including the United States) in the late 1940's. The list of human rights in the Universal Declaration is much larger than five, but most of those rights can be derived by further specification from the basic five.
un.org
Article 25.
(1) "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."
This approach fits well with the idea that you cannot distinguish sharply between negative rights and positive rights because even the so-called negative rights (for example, the right not to be killed) are positive in the sense that they call upon institutions to aid potential victims and bystanders to do what they can, at least if the cost to themselves is absorbable. |
