I suspect property rights are just a subset of moral intuitions, both coming from the same cognitive and social causes rather than one coming from the other. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html doesn’t need much modification to apply to many moral questions.
The basic assymetry you’re pointing out (not forced to give, but not allowed to take; not forced to act for good, but prevented from acting for bad) could be framed as simple humility—we don’t know enough to be sure, so bias toward doing nothing. Or it could be a way to create a ratchet effect—never act to make it worse, but sometimes act to make it better. Or it could be an evolved way to maintain power structures.
On deeper reflection, it’s clear that moral intuitions aren’t always what we’d choose as a rational moral framework. It seems likely that this distinction between action and inaction is an artifact, not a truth. Inaction _is_ action, and you’re responsible for all the harm you fail to prevent.
I suspect property rights are just a subset of moral intuitions, both coming from the same cognitive and social causes rather than one coming from the other. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html doesn’t need much modification to apply to many moral questions.
The basic assymetry you’re pointing out (not forced to give, but not allowed to take; not forced to act for good, but prevented from acting for bad) could be framed as simple humility—we don’t know enough to be sure, so bias toward doing nothing. Or it could be a way to create a ratchet effect—never act to make it worse, but sometimes act to make it better. Or it could be an evolved way to maintain power structures.
On deeper reflection, it’s clear that moral intuitions aren’t always what we’d choose as a rational moral framework. It seems likely that this distinction between action and inaction is an artifact, not a truth. Inaction _is_ action, and you’re responsible for all the harm you fail to prevent.