The Right to Life is a Negative Right

He is indeed correct in that my three scenarios all point to the same moral dilemma, that of negligence causing death. His rebuttal is somewhat philosophical, as he focuses on a "false trichotomy", the supposed difference between active killing and passive negligence, and the supposed irrelevance of inaction/negligence to the right to life. I will rebut each of PRO's claims. Rebuttal[A] The Trichotomy is Indeed False I agree that PRO is presenting a false trichotomy. .. this trichotomy is of PRO's design, not CON's. It is PRO who believes that there is a difference between action and inaction when it comes to the death of an individual. .. I do not believe there is a distinction. Simply put, I believe in a simple duality on this matter - Life and Death. The right to life means you will not die to the greatest extent as physically possible, regardless of action or inaction. This is fully consistent with the definition of the right to life as presented in round #1, which does not make a distinction between positive and negative rights. PRO believes in a false trichotomy: 1) Life, 2) Death through Action, and 3) Death through Inaction. It is this false trichotomy that compels PRO to take his stance on this particular resolution. .. it is this trichotomy that compels PRO to advocate for negative rights. Without this trichotomy, positive and negative rights would not factor at all into the right to life, and there would be no need to debate this topic. It is the veracity of this trichotomy that I am challenging in this debate. [B] Negligent Homicide IS KillingThis is very simple:"Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. .. It is characterized as a death caused by death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care. " . http://definitions.uslegal.com...PRO is fundamentally incorrect in his assertion that killing involves only action. It may very well involve inaction, i. e. negligence. PRO's main error is conflating "criminal negligence" with "negligent homicide" - the parents of the baby would NOT, as PRO states, "be charged with criminal negligence" - they would actually be charged with negligent homicide. Mere criminal negligence is relevant to neither this resolution nor my examples, and indeed involves neither manslaughter nor murder because no one necessarily dies. .. Negligent homicide however does apply to both this resolution and my examples. The definition of homicide necessitates killing (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...).[C] Negligence is Supremely Relevant to the Right to LifePRO makes a surprising claim: "Whether or not inaction is moral is irrelevant. .. Killing is action. " 1) I've already demonstrated that killing can involve action OR inaction.2) Whether or not inaction is moral is supremely relevant to the resolution. If inaction is immoral, then the right to life CANNOT be a negative right, because the right to life is a MORAL principle, NOT an IMMORAL principle. This should be simple enough to stand as it is. [D] Putting it TogetherTo apply these points to my examples:1) The parents DID KILL their baby by committing negligent homicide. 2) We DID KILL millions of people in starving nations that could not afford food because of our inaction in ameliorating a market failure that caused a fatal rise in food prices. 3) The doctor DID KILL the accident victim out of willful negligence. .. and more than likely no one would ever know about it, so he would not be charged with a crime. This is why I believe most observers, including myself, when presented with this scenario would consider what the doctor did not do to be immoral. Given PRO's statements, I think PRO believes the same, regardless of the action/inaction aspect of the scenario. If I was that doctor, I would more than likely have a guilty conscience following that event. That guilt would stem from the acknowledgement of the immorality of my inaction. All of these scenarios violate the right to life. How could it be otherwise? Through inaction, we cause the death of others. Whether or not we take responsibility for our actions AND inactions determines whether or not we are moral, as defined by the right to life, a moral principle. ConclusionThis debate has solidified my changed stance in my mind - I do believe the emphasis on negative rights when it comes to the right to life is wholly misplaced:1) It is based upon a false trichotomy that distorts the natural duality of life and death.2) Inaction leading to negligent homicide IS killing, thus releasing the moral principle of the right to life from the restrictive parameters of a negative right.3) Negligence is immoral - using the most pertinent example, it's impossible to consider willfully negligent parents as "morally" allowing their baby to die. If negligence is immoral, then framing the right to life as a negative right is immoral. It becomes a false statement - the right to life is a moral principle, but when put into the framework of negative rights, no longer is a moral principle. Thus, the resolution is negated - the right to life is NOT a negative right - it is a negative AND a positive right. Post ScriptI remind CON that his next round is his final round, and that for round #4, he agreed to leave it blank so that both of us could have a full 3 rounds of debate.