The balance between rights and obligations has probably been understood from time immemorial.
Perhaps, but your understanding is not the understanding I’m familiar with.
I’ve understood this balance to be something more intimate: If I have the right to live, you have the obligation not to take my life. If I have the right to speak, you have the obligation not to muzzle me. If I have the right to healthcare, somebody has the obligation to provide me with that healthcare. Or things along those lines.
Your formulation, in which there are a set of possible rights and obligations and you need to fill one pocket with rights and the other pocket with obligations in such a way that you can still walk a straight line, is some other species of animal.
If I have the right to live, you have the obligation not to take my life.
I agree with that, it basically states that there cannot be rights that contradict each other, i.e. you having the right to live, and me having the right to take your life. As for my formulation, perhaps it’s a product of the culture I was raised in, but if one member of society claims to have some extra rights compared to others, I would expect them to justify these extra rights by taking on an obligation.
I suppose you mention basic human rights as examples of rights that are not balanced out by obligations. This is also perfectly fine, you can have a non-zero balance of rights and obligations, as long as any additional right is met by an additional obligation. Indeed, the right to simply be alive is not met by any obligation I can think of.
Still, even for some basic rights, we can find corresponding obligations. If you have the right to live your life freely, you become responsible for your actions, i.e. you have an obligation to answer for any harmful action you may perform. This right is absent in young children, and so is the obligation—their guardians are responsible for their actions.
Perhaps, but your understanding is not the understanding I’m familiar with.
I’ve understood this balance to be something more intimate: If I have the right to live, you have the obligation not to take my life. If I have the right to speak, you have the obligation not to muzzle me. If I have the right to healthcare, somebody has the obligation to provide me with that healthcare. Or things along those lines.
Your formulation, in which there are a set of possible rights and obligations and you need to fill one pocket with rights and the other pocket with obligations in such a way that you can still walk a straight line, is some other species of animal.
I agree with that, it basically states that there cannot be rights that contradict each other, i.e. you having the right to live, and me having the right to take your life. As for my formulation, perhaps it’s a product of the culture I was raised in, but if one member of society claims to have some extra rights compared to others, I would expect them to justify these extra rights by taking on an obligation.
I suppose you mention basic human rights as examples of rights that are not balanced out by obligations. This is also perfectly fine, you can have a non-zero balance of rights and obligations, as long as any additional right is met by an additional obligation. Indeed, the right to simply be alive is not met by any obligation I can think of.
Still, even for some basic rights, we can find corresponding obligations. If you have the right to live your life freely, you become responsible for your actions, i.e. you have an obligation to answer for any harmful action you may perform. This right is absent in young children, and so is the obligation—their guardians are responsible for their actions.