ESSAY

Chapter 11 Instructor Notes – “Rights Ethics”

I. Introduction:

Suleman (Octo-mom). Rights ethics involves civil liberties and entitlements to basic social goods as the foundation of morality (342). “Human rights are not a new concept; however, the articulation of human rights by philosophers is a relatively recent development” (343). It arose largely in response to the ideas of social Darwinism, failed cultural relativism, and the growing confrontation with the idea of absolute sovereignty (343).

The women’s rights movement and suffrage movements in Seneca Falls had and an impact. Remember Thoreau’s position that non-representative authorities lead to un-just laws (344). Human rights were articulated by the United Nations around the Nuremberg trials of Nazis with the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (345). Buddhist ethicists have also been leading advocates of human rights.

Moral rights should been distinguished from civil (legal) rights. Manmade laws are not the source of rights. Some legal rights are not moral rights (such as a right to drive). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues that the USA Patriot Act unjustly infringes upon citizen’s right to privacy as well as detainee rights to a fair trial (346).

Key Claims of Rights Ethics:

· Natural Rights stem from our human nature, which is a special creation of God

· All and only humans have rights (are included in the moral community)

· Rights are self-evident and inalienable

· We do not have to qualify for or “earn” these rights (they are not dependent upon our membership in a civil society or political state)

· Rights exist independently of and prior to duties.

II. John Locke (and others): Natural Rights Ethics

The concept of Natural Rights for John Locke and Thomas Hobbes is built upon the condition would find itself in outside of society. For Hobbes, that state would be one of egoism and result in the life of man being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” For him, once we have entered into society, we have no claim of rights against a sovereign (the government) except when our self-preservation is at stake. Locke is a little more optimistic about the natural “state of humanity” and keeps the right to “life” while adding “liberty” and “the right to own property” as fundamental human rights (349). He was particularly concerned with property and essentially said that if take more than we can use and develop others have the right to take it from us.

Ayn Rand (remember her from the chapter on Ethical Egoism) held that only the doctrine of natural rights created the possibility of free societies. How we use our land and our choice of career (productive work) is intimately connected to our freedom to pursue the good life (and consequently, to become the best we can be for ourselves and society).

The doctrine of natural rights has come under scrutiny. There is disagreement on what the rights are and there is no way of resolving the disagreement since they are “self-evident.”

Annette Baier argues that the liberalism supported by natural ethics does not take into account the limitations placed upon marginalized groups by traditional societal roles. This limitation is one of the primary weaknesses (much like objections related to Ethical Egoism) that plagues natural rights ethics (352-353).

III. Marxist (and other) critique of Natural Rights Ethics

Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) believed the role of the philosopher was not simply to interpret the world (anthropology and sociology), but to change it. Marx rejected natural rights as a bourgeoisie invention. He argued that it helps preserve the wealth of those in power, rather than the majority who “cannot afford to exercise their ‘natural’ right to own property” (354). In 2011, Florida had one of the highest rates of unemployment and one foreclosures (11.9%). What good are “rights” if we don’t have the power to assert it (354). For Marx, rather than protecting the rights of everyone, capitalist government protects the rights of only those in power. He argued that rights should not just be based on our ability to assert them, but rather on our interest and needs as members of a civil society (355). If a person has a right, the state has a corresponding duty (education as an example, or otherwise).

Gustavo Gutierrrez https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkGaqBmQnoI is a liberation ethicist / liberation theologian. Liberation ethicists is “the ethical theory based on social and political reform and a demand for respect of the dignity and rights for all people” (426). He grew increasingly dissatisfied with the official church position in Latin America and is critical of laissez-faire capitalism with its emphasis on liberty rights and presumption that democracy will ensure human rights (355). The rights of private ownership have been bought at the cost of the rights of the poor (materially and those marginalized). While globalization of capitalism has increased the number of wealthy, it has come at the expense of making nearly everyone else poor and killed respect for the environment and isolated us from one another.

IV. Rights and Duties (Rights relationship to duty)

So, are rights entitlements? Does a right on you part create an obligation on mine? The big to disregard the rights of those who lack the political power or force of law to exercise their moral claims” (359). Utilitarian: Bentham attacked natural rights as ‘rhetorical nonsense – nonsense upon stilts” (359) “without government to curtail selfishness, he argued, any talk of rights makes no sense” (359). In short, rights exist only within the context of society, except that Mill held that we have a right to liberty that was absolutely binding upon society (360).

Rights and Human Dignity: Per Kant, the only right that is specifically created is the formal right to be treated with respect. Much like Locke, liberation philosophy/theology holds that the right to own land is limited by the landowners duty to use it well (for liberation theologists, this means if landowners respect the duty to share with the poor) (360). Like duties, most rights are prima facie rather than absolute and can be over-ridden in a particular case by a more compelling right or duty (361).

V. Liberty (Negative) Rights and Welfare (Positive) Rights:

Welfare or positive rights entail the right to receive certain social goods such as adequate nutrition, housing, education, and police and fire protection.

Liberty or negative rights entail the right to be left alone to pursue our legitimate interests without interference from the government or others (363). Our legitimate interests are those that do not violate other’s similar and equal interests.

Libertarians form a political philosophy and political party that opposes political restrictions on freedom. Everyone should be left alone to pursue their own interest (Locke, Rand, JS Mill – support minimal government). Unlike utilitarians, libertarians identify some rights that “place limitations on how we may treat persons independently of the consequences (364). They are also limited by our duty to treat ourselves with respect. For Kant, suicide is an abomination (364). In the US, we tend to place more emphasis on liberty rights than on welfare rights.

Welfare Rights (positive): welfare rights are important to authors like Guttierez and Marx because without a minimal standard of living, we cannot pursue our legitimate interests. Therefore, it is more important to focus on liberating the poor to be able to exercise their rights and we should have a preferential attitude toward the poor. According to John Rawls, differences in wealth are permissible only if they serve to benefit the least well-off in society (367). Rawls model was used to create the universal health care policy in the US (367).

Former United Nations ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick believes that the rhetoric of rights has gotten out of hand. She points out that “when people lack the ability to assert these ideal rights or to fulfill their life goals, the complain that someone or the government must be depriving them of their rights” (367)

VI. Rights and the Moral Community

Possession of rights has been interpreted as stemming from either (a) the power of self-assertion or (b) the interest of beings who may or may not be moral agents (369). Self-assertion the only human beings who have rights are those that can make and defend moral claims (Rational and autonomous humans). “Some humans, such as fetuses, newborns, the comatose, and those who are severely retarded, are not persons in this fuller sense, and therefore are not the bearers of rights” (370). The self-assertion model excludes all non-human animals, even though it seems to many of us that certain non-human animals are pretty good at making known that they expect to be feed, etc.

Interest model of rights is based on our capacity for suffering and pleasure and our concept of the good life (371). It starts from the position of moral equality. The equality is based on a moral ideal of equal concern for others regardless of their social and political power or their particular abilities (371).

Note that even if we extend the interest model to include non-human animals, non-human animals will likely not have the same rights, because they have different interests. “There are distinctly human rights, such as the right to religious freedom and the right to a formal education…” that just wouldn’t make sense if applied to the interest of animals (372).

VII. Critique of Rights Ethics

1. The theological basis of natural rights ethics, which privileges humans as a special creation, is difficult to justify. The claim of natural rights ethicists that rights are based upon the principle of equality has led animal rights advocates to question why this principle should not be extended to non-human animals (375).

2. The belief of natural rights ethicists that rights are self-evident is problematic. Without any criteria for justifying rights, there is no way to decide which claims of rights should be taken seriously and which are frivolous. For this reason, most philosophers argue that rights only make sense in terms of their relationship to duties (376).

3. The separation between liberty and welfare rights is not clear cut. The self-assertion model favored by libertarians actually depends upon a welfare right (police, military) to be protected by an extensive and expensive legal and police system (376).

4. Not all people are equally capable of asserting their rights. Basing rights on self-assertion favors those who have access to political and social power at the expense of those who lack this power. The interests model, on the other hand, tends to favor those who are weak – whether because of the natural lottery, restrictive social roles, or just plain laziness – at the expense of those who show initiative (376)

5. Rights protect our dignity as persons. Rights ethics is mainly problematic if it is used as a complete explanation of ethics; however, it is an important component of ethics theory. It focuses our attention on the claim that others must be treated with respect in a way that talk of duties alone may not (376).