Is my argument against pure positive duties valid? Not sound, just valid.?

Question

Duties are either positive or negative. If a duty is natural, then humans must be subject to that duty at birth. If one is subject to a duty, then she is capable of fulfilling it. Humans are not capable of fulfilling positive duties at birth and therefore are not subject to them. And so as humans are not subject to positive duties at birth, positive duties are not natural. Humans are capable, however, of fulfilling negative duties at birth (for to do so they need do nothing). In being capable of fulfilling these duties, it follows that humans are subject to them. So as it is the case that humans are subject to negative duties at birth, it follows that negative duties are natural. That which is natural is clearly prior to that which is artificial or conventional. Thereby anything artificial or conventional must come from something that is natural. However this is a self-contradiction. A pure duty is one that exists without a triggering action, and so there can be no pure positive duties

Answer 1

Unrealistic, but valid well done.

Answer 2

Christ came into this world to fulfill a duty, to our Eternal Father and to mankind. It was a choice though still. He was capable from birth. A child is not born into sin, therefore can not have negative. It is Natural only in that there is free agency from birth. Not that negative duty will necessarily be the outcome. Conventional insights do not equal spiritual potentials or positive conduct. Actions are directly related to free agency , choices and of the nature of human kind.. The nature of man, by spirit is good, for it is from a higher duty, the nature of the body is conflict.. choice to .. We forget that we are not a body having a spiritual experience here on Earth, but rather a spirit first which gained a body to fulfill the duty to follow our spiritual duty.. to return back to our Eternal home someday , from the trials and testing here we go through.. It is what it is.. choice... to fulfill ones own destiny and duty to self and God. Positive duty exists yet, it does not change, only human kind does..

Answer 3

Not valid. Your distinction between negative and positive duties doesn't hold for infants. Infants cannot uphold negative duties. Not doing something is not the same thing as deciding to not do something when you know you could do it.

Oh and also, why should a natural duty be exercised from birth? Unless you're secretly trying to argue there are no duties, since this is a standard that nothing could satisfy.

Answer 4

To me, this argument does not work if you accept that a duty requires one to act in such-and-such a manner to the best of their personal limitations -- being an infant included -- and the problem with your argument mostly lies in your definition of "subject to duty X".
We are all equally "subject to" or "under the direction of" or "subjects of" every duty - as long as we are rational beings, a Kantian argument might go, we are all equally under the law of the obligations our duties provide.
Someone's abilities do not affect whether or not they are "subject to a duty".
For example, if Terry and Mary are two doctors, and Mary is more skilled as a doctor as Terry, and two gunshot wound victims suffering from the exact same wound come in -- one to see each of the two doctors, they both have the same duty to save their patients' lives, despite the fact that Terry may be less capable of saving his assigned victim's life than Mary is with her own victim. Whether or not Terry has the ability, he has the same duty and is obligated to do all he can to save the life of the injured person.
A person at birth *is* subject, though unable to fulfill, their duties - whether positive or negative -- at birth, just as they are obligated in mid-life and up until the time of their demise... whatever their abilities.

Along this line further and we can see how, if we accept your argument, every person would have different duties, and some people would never be responsible for their actions for which other people would be held responsible -- a mentally handicapped person and a brilliant scientist have equal duties not to kill their mothers, whatever their mental capacities.... (then again, this particular example may bring up the matter of whether or not a "knowledge requirement" affects someone's being held responsible, though it doesn't change that everyone would be subject to the same laws)...

In short, it would seem that your suggested argument leads to the impossibility of normative moral codes and to relativism - the modern ethicist's worst nightmare!

i think this is a deal-breaker

Answer 5

Duty requires human interaction. An infant is not capable of this, thus duty does not have to originate at birth but from when a person is socialized.

Answer 6

Free-will versus determinism. The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative, but neither need mature cognitive symbolic process to exist.

My right is my duty and my duty is my right. Does this mean it always pleasant? No.

Answer 7

You have stated a lot of sound points in your argument!!!
Yet your argument cannot be adjudged as a valid one just because the theme is not correct and in line with the nature!!!

Your aims are OK but your conclusion is yet to be revealed!!!!

Answer 8

Just like S. Dali; very surreal, but very valid too!0!

Duality rather than contradiction. The closest thing to something is its opposite.

Enjoy!

Answer 9

Unsound, but valid.