Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Rights of security and rights of subsistence are basic ri... — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Rights of security and rights of subsistence are basic rights

    Rights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rights of security and rights of subsistence are indispensable for the full enjoyment of all other rights
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A right is basic if and only if it is indispensable for the enjoyment of other rights
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Negative rights (security from interference) and positive rights (subsistence entitlements) are categorically distinct in their obligatory structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Only negative rights generate universal duties of non-interference; positive subsistence rights generate contested, resource-dependent duties of provision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A coherent theory of basic rights cannot conflate categorically distinct normative structures under a single foundational status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nozick's entitlement theory holds that rights are side-constraints on action, not goal-states to be maximized through redistributive provision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mandatory subsistence provision requires coercive redistribution of holdings acquired through legitimate processes, violating prior rights of self-ownership.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, subsistence 'rights' cannot be basic rights without presupposing the very violation of the foundational rights they purport to ground.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Rights & Liberty

    Related

    A coherent theory of basic rights cannot conflate categorically distinct normati...A right is basic if and only if it is indispensable for the enjoyment of other r...Mandatory subsistence provision requires coercive redistribution of holdings acq...Negative rights (security from interference) and positive rights (subsistence en...
    +4 moreShow less
    Nozick's entitlement theory holds that rights are side-constraints on action, no...Only negative rights generate universal duties of non-interference; positive sub...Rights of security and rights of subsistence are indispensable for the full enjo...Therefore, subsistence 'rights' cannot be basic rights without presupposing the ...

    Similar

    Rights of security and rights of subsistence are indispensable for the...86%A right is basic if and only if it is indispensable for the enjoyment ...75%Rawls's first principle gives priority to basic rights and liberties o...72%Moral rights secure the freedom necessary for individuals to pursue ha...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: rights
    View source passageHide passage
    Philosophers have discussed not only how rights can conflict, but how they sometimes support one another. For example, Henry Shue has argued that both rights of security and rights of subsistence are “basic rights” because they are indispensable for the full enjoyment of all other rights—while other rights are non-basic because they are not indispensable for the enjoyment of these two. If the enjoyment or realization of a controversial right is an important precondition for the enjoyment of an u
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit