Obligations of the Negative Kind

In Rand’s essay, “Man Rights”, she says, "As to his (man’s) neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of the negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.” She goes on to say in the same essay: "No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man." and "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man's freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men."

Which is it, obligation or not? I had always assumed no obligation, that demands can not be made on others. When your rights are violated, it is up to you to defend them, if the government won't.

Post 1

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 6:21pm

There should be no unchosen obligations. What about the quotes you provided lead you to believe that there are unchosen obligations?

Post 2

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 8:17pm

An 'unchosen obligation' is a contradiction in terms. It is a euphenism for 'duty', which is an otherism mindset, a slaver mentality.

Post 3

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 9:34pm

An 'unchosen obligation' is a contradiction in terms.

Come to think of it, you're right. It's not that unchosen obligations shouldn't exist, it's that they don't. In every case of "unchosen obligation" I could think of, the victim is giving sanction to someone, making it chosen.

Thanks!

Post 4

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 10:06pm

Robert, good point. First she says rights impose negative obligations on other people. Then she says rights impose no obligations on people. I think she was being a little sloppy there.

She probably meant to say rights impose no positive obligations on people.

Post 5

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 7:20am

Daniel wrote:

>>She probably meant to say rights impose no positive obligations on people.

Ok, but what are negative obligations? Does it mean no obligation? If so, why the word 'except'?

Post 6

Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 12:12am

I would say, a negative obligation is a kind of obligation.

A "negative obligation" is supposed to be an obligation *not* to take some kind of action. For example, my individual rights impose the following negative obligations on other people--don't rob me, don't kill me, etc.

Some people would say that my individual rights impose "positive obligations" on other people--that is, obligations to take some kind of action. For example, socialists might say that other people have the following positive obligations--pay for my education, give me food if I'm starving, give me a house if I'm homeless, etc.

(Edited by Daniel O'Connor on 3/12, 12:15am)

Post 7

Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 6:23am

Daniel wrote:

>>A "negative obligation" is supposed to be an obligation *not* to take some kind of action. For example, my individual rights impose the following negative obligations on other people--don't rob me, don't kill me, etc.

Yet this is unenforcable, so it is an illusion. Others can choose immorality, and are only punished or incarcerated if they are caught. Many, clearly, are willing to take that chance, so how are they obligated? It is true one can take retaliatory action after this 'obligation' is not met, but if by virtue of freedom of choice or free will it can be ignored in the first place, where is the oblitation?

And, most importantly, Rand goes on to say: "No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man." and "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man's freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men."

So again, I ask is there an obligation or not?

Post 8

Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:11am

And, most importantly, Rand goes on to say: "No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man." and "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man's freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men."

So again, I ask is there an obligation or not?

Well, I do think you've caught Ayn Rand being a little sloppy here. She did say that rights impose negative obligations on other people; then she says rights "impose no obligations on other men." It's true, she contradicted herself. I think she meant to say that rights impose no positive obligations on other men. Rights do impose negative obligations on others, but not positive ones. And I think the saying "there's no such thing as an unchosen obligation" isn't quite right; I think it should be, "there's no such thing as an unchosen positive obligation."

Yet this is unenforcable, so it is an illusion. Others can choose immorality, and are only punished or incarcerated if they are caught. Many, clearly, are willing to take that chance, so how are they obligated? It is true one can take retaliatory action after this 'obligation' is not met, but if by virtue of freedom of choice or free will it can be ignored in the first place, where is the oblitation?

Here it sounds to me like you're using a different definition of "obligated" than the standard definition. Just because you're obligated to do something doesn't mean it's physically impossible for you to do otherwise. You can always choose to ignore your obligation.

Post 9

Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 6:05am

Daniel wrote:

>>Well, I do think you've caught Ayn Rand being a little sloppy here. She did say that rights impose negative obligations on other people; then she says rights "impose no obligations on other men." It's true, she contradicted herself. I think she meant to say that rights impose no positive obligations on other men. Rights do impose negative obligations on others, but not positive ones.

I am not trying to expose sloppyness. I had always interpreted "negative kind" as meaning none, especially in light of what follows, until someone pointed out the word except in the sentence. My problem with it is, the language. We all talk easily about positive obligations, in other words, if someone claims a right to health care they are obligating me to provide it, although linguistically, a positive obligation is redundant as in a free gift. But when we come to negative obligation, it is an oxymoron, like true lies. There has to more than sloppiness to this, it is too 'baroque' to be passed off so easily.

in David Kelley’s “Is there a right to health care” the sentence “Liberty rights impose negative obligations: the obligation not to interfere with one's liberty” appears.

The idea that there is an obligation on the part of another when I choose freedom, negatively impinges upon the Objectivist theory of volition or “freewill”, as well. According to Objectivism, as I understand it, Man is as free to evade reality, as he is to choose it. But, if man is obligated, i.e., not free to choose, because of my choice, then he is not free. He is, in effect, a slave to my freedom. Laissez-faire has no meaning in this context. My liberty is not defended by another man’s obligation, but by the judicial threat/use of retaliatory force.

Daniel wrote:

>>Here it sounds to me like you're using a different definition of "obligated" than the standard definition. Just because you're obligated to do something doesn't mean it's physically impossible for you to do otherwise. You can always choose to ignore your obligation.

An obligation is a duty, which is again, something Objectivism rejects.

Post 10

Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 6:34am

No - an obligation is NOT a 'duty' - that is the very thing Rand was insistant on, a crucial differenciation of concepts. One is NOT born with an obligation - it is a voluntarily incurredness.

Post 11

Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:34am

Main Entry: 1ob·li·gate
Pronunciation: 'ä-bl&-"gAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -gat·ed; -gat·ing
Etymology: Latin obligatus, past participle of obligare
1 : to bind legally or morally : CONSTRAIN
2 : to commit (as funds) to meet an obligation

Post 12

Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 9:33am

It is really quite useless to cut-and-paste a dictionary definition without comment.

It is also very annoying.

Post 13

Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 10:20am

daniel wrote:

>>Here it sounds to me like you're using a different definition of "obligated" than the standard definition.

How annoying do you think it is, when someone tells me I have the wrong definition without offering up one of his own? Are you following the argument here or just picking up on the last couple of posts?
(Edited by Robert Davison
on 3/13, 10:23am)

Post 14

Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 11:07am

But when we come to negative obligation, it is an oxymoron

Hmm, I don't think it's an oxymoron. "Negative" just tells you what kind of obligation it is--it's an obligation not to take some certain action. (Like an obligation not to rob me, for example.)

it is too 'baroque' to be passed off so easily

Don't know what you mean by that.

But, if man is obligated, i.e., not free to choose

Just because you have an obligation to do something, doesn't mean you can't choose to do otherwise. I'm obligated to pay my rent, but I could choose to not do it.

I think there is some inconsistency here in the way Objectivists use the word "obligation" that can cause some confusion. It seems to me that sometimes Objectivists use "obligation" to mean "positive obligation"; then they will claim that there is no such thing as an unchosen obligation. Other times they'll talk about "negative obligations" as a specific kind of obligation, and they will point out that individual rights automatically impose negative obligations on other people. This inconsistency is a problem; we need to all be very careful and agree on a single definition that we'll all use all the time. Two people could sit around and argue whether or not it's true that there are no unchosen obligations; and the whole disagreement could just be a result of their different definitions of the word "obligation".

Actually, I don't think I've ever heard anyone carefully explain precisely what an obligation is; or if I have then I don't remember it. Here are two possible definitions I can think of:

1) An "obligation" is an action that someone has explicitly agreed to take. Like paying rent. According to this definition, there are of course no unchosen obligations, and individual rights don't impose any obligations on other people.

2) An "obligation" is an action that must be taken in order to achieve some other goal. For example, if you want to let me choose how I live my own life, then you must not point a gun at me and order me to do things. According to this definition, a statement like "you are obligated not to rob me" would really be an incomplete statement; a complete statement might be "if you want people to be able to create their own wealth and use it however they choose, then you are obligated not to rob me." When Objectivists say individual rights impose negative obligations on other people, I think they really mean something like, "if your goal is for other people to live their own lives however they choose, then you must not violate their individual rights."

When Objectivists say individual rights impose negative obligations on others, they certainly aren't using definition 1; it seems to me that they are using something like definition 2. When Objectivists say there is no such thing as an unchosen obligation, it seems to me that they are using definition 1.

There's a passage in one of Ayn Rand's essays where she discusses the meaning of the statement "you 'should' take such and such action." She says it's really an incomplete statement, and the complete statement would be "you 'should' take such and such action if you want to achieve such and such goal." According to definition 2, there would be a similar issue with the statement "you are 'obligated' to take such and such action".

Philosophers always make the mistake of throwing around words that haven't been carefully defined and don't have clear meanings. I'm partly afraid even to engage in this kind of discussion, because I might start doing it myself.

(Edited by Daniel O'Connor on 3/13, 11:12am)

Post 15

Monday, March 14, 2005 - 5:25am