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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Rights of security and rights of subsistence are basic rights

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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