Vanessa Gold

Final Exam / Ethics

A Rights (negative, positive) What are rights? The definition of rights can be divided
into a right holder and a right observer. A right holder is a permission to act; holding or
having a right may entitle responsibility. A right observer is a right that imposes a duty or
obligation. Rights can be inherent or give to us by law. Negative rights are those that are
inherent to us. They cannot be granted or denied by government. They cannot be
interfered with. They are also referred to as non-interference rights. Examples of these
are the right to freedom, private property, and pursuit of happiness, liberty, and health.
Positive rights are rights that are granted, usually by law. They are rights enjoyed by
consensus and not unlimited. Some examples of these are welfare, financial aid, and any
form of government assistance.

B Why is it difficult to ascribe animal rights? This is a difficult concept because our
rights are based on the concept of humans. Humans are given rights based the following
criteria, being born human, having rationality, having the ability to feel, autonomy to
make choices, having a conscience being self, and having projects. You cannot apply
these criteria to animals. This also brings up the question, where do you draw the line?
If we give animal rights, where do we draw the line? Does stepping on an ant then
become a crime? Which animals are protected? Which animals do we deem worthy of
protection? And who decides? This does not mean we should treat animals as things,
there should some guidelines in regards to the worldwide treatment of animals, still
keeping the respect the difference in attitudes towards animals in all cultures, however to
give them rights as we have, would be impossible.

C If you make human rights natural, which argument would you provide? I would
go by Lockes idea that these rights are built in, they are ours. They are given by nature,
inherent within us, and they are negative, and therefore they cannot be made positive by
law because negative rights cannot be granted or denied by law. Human rights are based
on the fact that we are human, based on the criteria described in question B, and because
of these criteria, all human rights are in fact natural.

D What is the difference between separatism, supremacism, integrationism, pluralism?

A separatist can be broken down into two categories, the limited separatist, and the
separatist. The separatist acknowledges that all groups need to remain separate, while the
limited separatist allows for some integration on a limited basis that stresses the needs for
cultural identity. This is close in position to the integrationist, who advocates integration
while still maintaining the ability to see separate parts. The moderate integrationist wants
to integrate with restrictions. The Pluralist acknowledges all and lives with diversity.
This position is more of a philosophical position then a cultural one. Lastly, the
supremacists are the most radical position. It is their belief that their ethnic group is the
best one regardless of the reason.
E What is the difference between respect and love? Respect is less involved. It is
altruistic and symmetrical. It involves observing personal freedoms and choices. Love is
more involved; it is a-symmetrical, and less altruistic. There is a personal involvement,
and therefore personal feelings and emotions cloud judgement. When you respect
someone, you can make observations and suggestions based clearly on their best
interests, for your only interest is what is best for the other person. When you are dealing
with love, you have your own best interests involved, since the level of involvement
dictates that decisions made by the other person will effect your life as well. Respect
gives you more space, but it also is less fulfilling. It is my belief that only out of respect
can healthy love develop.

F What is the difference between Kholberg and Gilligans gender theories? Kholberg
prescribes one set of stages of development, and holds both men and women to this
model. According to Kholberg because women cannot separate their personal feelings
from their moral development, therefore, they are deficient. Gillian states that this is
incorrect, that there needs to be two different stages of moral development for men and
women because we think differently. She believes that this separation of care
perspective over rights perspective does not make us morally deficient, just different.
This same difference allows women to see things in context. For example, according to
Kholberg, stealing is wrong, and to see it differently, would be morally incorrect.
However, according to Gillian, women see things in context. A woman might ask why
did the person steal? Perhaps the person had no money and had a child who needed
medicine, so the person resorted to stealing. Would this still be wrong? Stealing is in
fact wrong, but in the context, could we still see this person as wrong?

G In what sense the communitarian argument creates a tension between the

embeddedness and the freedom of the individual? According to communitarism, what is
right is what the community sets forth as being right. An individuals sense of self is
embedded in a community. Each freedom is subject to an evaluation of the community.
This would create a tension between personal feelings of freedom, and those set by the
community. One example would be an individual who feels he has the right to play his
music loudly. According to the community, what is right, and what he should feel is right
is what is set by the community, so therefore, if the community has decided playing loud
music is wrong, then he too should see it as wrong. This would create a conflict here
because what the community sets may not always be what the individual sets for himself,
but he must follow the communitys guidelines and moral ideas, since personal rights are
to be embedded with the community.