Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Shue further maintains that the negative and positive rights distinction can be harmful, because it may result in the neglect of necessary duties. [8] James P. Sterba makes similar criticisms. He holds that any right can be made to appear either positive or negative depending on the language used to define it. He writes:
One example of a positive right is the purported "right to welfare". [4] Negative rights are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right as an entitlement to non-interference such as a right against being assaulted. [4]
For example, negative politeness is the norm in some cultures (Japan and Britain) but not others that prefer positive politeness (Australia) [9] and some cultures use politeness strategies when there is no face threat, such as the Japanese honorific system. [42]
Negative conclusion from affirmative premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion yet both premises are affirmative. The inability of affirmative premises to reach a negative conclusion is usually cited as one of the basic rules of constructing a valid categorical syllogism .
The affirmative, in an English example such as "the police chief here is a woman", declares a simple fact, in this case, it is a fact regarding the police chief and asserts that she is a woman. [5] In contrast, the negative, in an English example such as "the police chief here is not a man", is stated as an assumption for people to believe. [5]
Thomas Aquinas conflated man-made law (lex humana) and positive law (lex posita or ius positivum). [3] [4] [5] However, there is a subtle distinction between them.Whereas human-made law regards law from the position of its origins (i.e. who it was that posited it), positive law regards law from the position of its legitimacy.
Negative reciprocity occurs when an action that has a negative effect on someone is returned with an action that has an approximately equal negative effect. [ 23 ] [ 28 ] For example, if an individual commits a violent act against a person, it is expected that person would return with a similar act of violence.
The Golden Rule in its prohibitive (negative) form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include: "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales [12] (c. 624 – c. 546 BCE) "What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either." – Sextus the Pythagorean. [13]