Human nature is such that it only concerns itself with matters of personal interest. In other words, human beings take on participatory roles in any subject, policy or forum based on personal interests, and use the same stand when developing their position. To this extent, a person can either contribute to a given social issue or not based on their preference, which they believe they are entitled to. Whether this right is negative or positive, there is no denying that every human being has the right to choose what they want to do or what matters they would like to contribute to. As such, there is no right or wrong right, but instead, such right can only be negative or positive, depending on where one stands.
As earlier on mentioned, there are two sides to the debate, both of which use the Rights Theory to justify their stand. Side 1 believes in negative rights. According to Bentham, the negative rights implies the belief to be left alone (Schofield, 2003) . For this side, every human being is entitled to decide when they would like to contribute to a given issue, or not. This side, therefore, believes strongly in independence, and freedom to choose what they would like to do and develop their own stands. Thus, they think it is their right to be left alone, and that every human being should be left to make their own decisions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Side 2 of the Rights Theory believes in positive rights, that is, the right to demand accountability from others. This side of the debate thinks that it is the moral responsibility of every member of the society to look out for one another, and as such, they should be held accountable for their contribution towards what would be called communal or collective wellbeing and development (Schofield, 2003) . An example in the society would be the fact that parents are obliged to provide food, shelter, and security to their children up to the time they are grown enough to fend for themselves. In a more democrat society, the positive rights equally extend to leadership in which citizens believe they are entitled to service delivery by the leaders and therefore demand service and accountability from the said leaders or politicians.
However, a middle ground can be drawn between these two sides using the Utilitarianism, or the Virtue Ethics. The Virtue Ethics primarily are normative ethical theories that place great emphasis on mind and character virtues (Bell, Dyck, & Neubert, 2017) . What these virtues, therefore, build on is that every human being has the mental capacity to process situations and develop their stands, and then guided by their character virtues, decide the best way to get involved. The mind virtues would imply deciding between the negative or positive rights, while the character ethics would then inform the best cause of action, taking the opinion and interests of others at heart. In most cases, the Virtue Ethics would advocate for positive rights on the side of the subject, that is, realizing that they have a moral obligation to get involved and accountable in helping other members of the society.
In conclusion, while this paper does not give its stand on the way to go when it comes to the Rights Theories, it is essential to observe that every human being is equipped with the knowledge. This is coupled with the morality of a sound mind, to develop their own stand, deciding when they should get involved in policies and other avenues of public interest. The Virtue Ethics expound on this independence when it states that in whatever decision an individual settle on, they should always act with the interest of others at heart, and thus should be guided by accountability in making such decisions.
References
Bell, G. G., Dyck, B., & Neubert, M. J. (2017). Ethical Leadership, Virtue Theory, And Generic Strategies. Radical Thoughts on Ethical Leadership , 113 .
Schofield, P. (2003). Jeremy Bentham's ‘Nonsense upon Stilts’. Utilitas , 15 (1), 1-26.
