Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:12:00 -0700
From: "HARVEY Peter" [email protected]
Subject: Universal rights, baby milk, and prioritising rights
A Chu suggests that negative rights are not always the most important, asking: ‘which one is worse?
1.A government confiscating a magazine with opposing political viewpoints.
2.Nestle knowingly sending out ‘milk nurses’ to get third world mothers hooked on infant formulae that they could not afford, causing higher infant mortality’.
One could perhaps express the concern over 2 in terms of a negative right: the right not to be knowingly sold something which is harmful, without being properly told that it is harmful
Stephen Jamar suggests that the rights to life and freedom from torture are, in any case, more important than all other rights, negative or positive. Perhaps one can talk of life rights, and then negative and positive social rights, with the negative ones being, arguably, more important.
David Arnott strongly emphasises the ‘indivisibility’ of rights. Obviously, many rights imply each other- but if idivisibility is insisted on, then quibbling about one purported right ends up being quibbling about them all.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Universal rights, baby milk, and prioritising rights
As a general priority scheme, it makes sense. But what about my question on human rights violations by CORPORATIONS? Once again, it is ignored in the discussion. Why is this?