Alan Gewirth’s Reason and Morality: Towards the Justification of Human Rights

Morality, definition

“a set of categorically obligatory requirements for action that are addressed at least in part
to every actual of prospective agent, and that are concerned with furthering the interests,
especially the most important interests, of persons or recipients other than or in addition to
the agent or the speaker.” (Reason and Morality, 1)

Three Questions of Moral Philosophy

Authoritative – “why should one be moral?”

Distributive – “whose interests other than I should I consider in my actions?”
Substantive – “which interests are good one or constitute the most important goods?”

BUT, there could be more than one answer to these questions! Hence, we should establish a
supreme moral principle that should be able to address these questions.

The characteristics of this supreme moral principle (p. 21)

1. Does not beg the question – the elements within it does not justify one another.
2. Determinate – from a single principle, two opposite courses of action could not be
derived.
3. Conclusive- it cannot be challenged rationally, ergo it is necessary.

Reason, definition

Gewirth uses ‘reason’ to pertain to “the canons of deductive and inductive logic…”

Conceptual analysis using the deductive logic model where upon analysis of a complex
concept A, we find it contains concepts B, C, and D. Hence, to say that A applies, while denying
B, C, and D applies results into a contradiction (violation of the logical principle of non-
contradiction).

Using induction and deduction avoids arbitrariness, prejudices, and personal whims.

Example:
Concept A: I must graduate from the University.

It follows from concept A therefore that

Concept B: I must be enrolled in a University.

Concept C: I must pass all the required subjects for the course.
Concept D: I should study hard in order to pass my subjects.
It would be a contradiction on your part to say that you want to graduate but you won’t study
hard, or pass your subjects, or enroll in any course at all!

Reason determines Morality’s content: Action

What is the necessary content of morality? its conditio sine qua non?

Gewirth: ACTION! Why? Can you do what is right and wrong without action? That’s would
be absurd!

Morality is concerned with ACTIONS/AGENCY. “For all moral judgements…consist directly

or indirectly in precepts about how persons ought to act toward one another.” (Human Rights,
46) In other words, action is basically necessary in doing what is right and wrong.

Generic Features of Action: Freedom and Purposiveness

These are the necessary content of our actions (practical or moral): “voluntariness or
freedom and purposiveness or intentionality.”

Voluntariness – “its performance is under the agent’s control in that he unforcedly chooses
to act as he does, knowing the relevant proximate circumstances of his action.” (Reason and
Morality, 27) – establishes one’s FREEDOM

Purposiveness – “the agent acts for some end or purpose that constitutes his reason for
acting; this purpose may consist in the action itself or in something to be achieved by the
action.” (Ibid.) – established one’s WELL-BEING

Normative Structure of Action:

I do X for the purpose E

Where,

“I” – signifies one’s freedom

“do X” – action
“for the purpose E” – signifies one’s purpose

One implication is that for the agent, he does X because he sees his purpose as something
that is good – “E is good.”

Gewirth’s Method: Dialectically Necessary Method

By ‘dialectic’ we refer to the method used by Socrates. Usually begins with a speaker’s
opinions, statements, claims then they are evaluated by Socrates who tries to infer the logical
implications of their statements.
In other words,

1. There is a statement, a claim, or an opinion.

2. This statement, claim, or opinion is examined as to what it logically implies.

Contingent vs. Necessary

Dialectically contingent method – “beings from singular or general statements or judgments

that reflect variable beliefs, interests, or ideals of some person or group.” (Ibid., 43) e.g. “I
believe in liberal democracy” – all its entailments are also contingent.

Dialectically necessary method – “begins from statements or judgment that are necessarily
attributable to every agent because they derive from the generic features that constitute the
necessary structure of action.” (Ibid.) e.g. “I do X for the purpose E” – all its entailments are
necessary i.e. should be followed by all rational agents lest they fall into self-contradiction.

Generic Features of Action as Logical Justificatory Basis for a Supreme Moral Principle

“First, every agent implicitly makes an evaluative judgment about the

goodness of his purposes and hence about the necessary goodness of the
freedom and well-being that are the necessary conditions of his acting to
achieve his purposes. Second, because of this necessary goodness, every agent
implicitly makes a deontic judgment in which he claims that he has rights to
freedom and well-being. Third, every agent must claim these rights for the
sufficient reason that he is a prospective agent who has purposes he wants to
fulfill, so that he logically must accept the generalization that all prospective
purposive agents have rights to freedom and well-being.” (Ibid., 48)

I. First, every agent implicitly makes an evaluative judgment about the goodness of
his purposes and hence about the necessary goodness of the freedom and well-
being that are the necessary conditions of his acting to achieve his purposes.

When you evaluate something, you determine its “goodness” or “badness.”1 In this
phase, you evaluate your purpose as something that is “good” (perhaps because it
establishes your well-being). Implication: you have to act in order to achieve your
purpose. Necessarily, therefore, you also evaluate your freedom and well-being as
something valuable and good. Why? Will you be able to achieve your purpose without
freedom and well-being? This is the reason why, for Gewirth, one reacts negatively to

1
Evaluative (also called Normative) – “They tell us what the speaker believes is good or bad…”
Descriptive – judgements which “state factual beliefs.”
Examples:
Evaluative: Death Penalty is morally wrong.
Descriptive: According to a study, Death Penalty reduces the rise of criminality.
 coercion or restrain when one tries to act. Sige nga subukan mong kumilos pero
pipigilan kita. Makakakilos ka?

A person may also value his/her well-being in three ways: “First, he regards as good
those basic aspects of his well-being that are the proximate necessary preconditions
of his performance of any and all of his actions. Second, he regards it as good that his
level of purpose-fulfillment not be lowered by his losing something that seems to him
to be good. Third, he regards it as good that his level of purpose-fulfillment be raised
by his gaining something that seems to him to be good, namely, the goal or objective
for which he acts.” (Ibid., 53-54)

In other words, these are Gewirth’s hierarchy of goods:

1. Basic goods – these are basic (without them, you cannot perform an action)
a. life
b. physical integrity (means to food, clothing, shelter)
c. mental equilibrium (or mental health)
d. feeling of confidence

2. Nonsubtractive goods
a. something that an agent has already regarded as good prior to his acting.
b. something that an agent is able to maintain – and not lose.

3. Additive goods
a. something which he regards as good when he is able to raise it to the level
of his well-being – may be some external goals/purposes.

II. Second, because of this necessary goodness, every agent implicitly makes a deontic
judgment in which he claims that he has rights to freedom and well-being.

Now, because you have valued freedom and well-being as something good i.e. without
them you cannot act voluntarily and purposively, you make a deontic claim over these
two – “I have a right to freedom and well-being.” In other words, you begin to assert
your generic rights to freedom and well-being. And because you claim your right to
freedom and well-being, other persons have a correlative duty (deontic) not to interfere
with the fulfillment of your action.

Thus, “[a] claim-right of one person entails a correlative duty of some other person or
persons to act or to refrain from acting in ways required for the first person’s having
that to which he has a right.” (Human Rights, 2)

May karapatan si Ana sa lupang ito laban kay George sa pamamagitan ng titulong
pinanghahawakan ni Ana.
 Ana – subject of the right
lupa – object of the right
George – respondent
titulong pinanghahawakan ni A – justification/ground for the right

Kaya naman, may katumbas na tungkulin si George na igalang ang karapatan ni Ana sa
lupang iyon.

“A has a right to X against B by virtue of Y.”

(Universal) Elements:

• A – is the subject of the right

• X – object of the right
• B – respondent (the person/s who has/have the correlative duty)
• Y – justification/ground for the right
• Nature of the right

III. Third, every agent must claim these rights for the sufficient reason that he is a
prospective agent who has purposes he wants to fulfill, so that he logically must
accept the generalization that all prospective purposive agents have rights to
freedom and well-being.

Let us understand this logically:

“If one person S has a certain right because he has quality Q (where the ‘because,’ as
before, is that of sufficient condition, no understood as justificatory), then all persons
who have Q must have such right.” (Reason and Morality, 106)

I have the right to X, because I have quality Q.

But, all other persons have the quality Q.
Therefore, all other persons [having the quality Q] have the right to X.

I have the right to enter the campus because I am enrolled in UP.

But, all other students are also enrolled in UP.
Therefore, all other students [enrolled in UP] have the right to enter the campus.

This is also called the principle of universalizability. As I make a right-claim over freedom and
well-being, I must logically commit that others are also making such right claims. Having
established a valid right claim, one has a correlative moral duty not to interfere with others’
right to freedom and right to basic, nonsubtractive, and additive goods.

From this premise, Gewirth formulates his Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC):
 “Act in accord with the generic rights of your recipients as well as of yourself.”
(Ibid., 135)

By ‘generic rights’ – we refer to the rights to freedom and well-being.

Consistency is key: To deny the PGC, is to contradict yourself. It is just like saying:

I have the right to enter the campus because I am enrolled in UP.

But, all other students are also enrolled in UP.
Therefore, all other students [enrolled in UP] have no right to enter the campus.

I have the right to life, because I am human.

But, all others are humans.
Therefore, all others [which are human] have no right to life.

I have the right to freedom and well-being, because I find my purpose good.
But, all others find their purpose good.
Therefore, all others [who find their purpose good] have no right to freedom and well-being.

Likewise, “the obligations of the PGC cannot be escaped by any agent by shifting his
inclinations, interests, or ideals, or by appealing to institutional rules whose contents are
determined by convention.” (Ibid.)

In other words, “to act in accord with someone’s rights is to see to it, so far as one can, that
one fulfills the correlative obligation.” (ibid.)

Right: A has a right to freedom of speech.

Correlative duty: B has a duty to refrain from interfering with A’s speaking.  NEGATIVE
DUTY

Right: A is starving. Implication: A has a right to a basic good of food.

Correlative duty: B has a duty to give A food if he can. (This is B acting in accord with A’s
right to food)  POSITIVE DUTY

So much for generic rights…how about human rights?

GENERIC RIGHTS = HUMAN RIGHTS2

or

Human Rights = Rights to Freedom and Well-Being

But, the generic rights to freedom and well-being are too broad/general. (kaya nga generic
‘eh) What are their specific contents and their relation to each other?

2
“The equation of the generic rights with human rights thus does not derogate from the universality of
the latter.” (Human Rights, 55)
We said well-being may be valued in three ways: basic, nonsubtractive, and additive – these
are the three kinds of goods according to Gewirth.

Basic goods are basically: life, physical integrity, and mental equilibrium.
These basic goods are violated if one is: “killed, starved, physically incapacitated, terrorized,
or subjected to mentally deranging drugs.” (Human Rights, 55)

This basic good is also violated if A, who is capable of swimming, sees B drowning but does
not save the latter.

Nonsubtractive goods: “the abilities and conditions required for maintaining undiminished
one’s level of purpose-fulfillment and one’s capabilities for particular actions.” (Ibid., 56)

e.g. truth, knowledge, properties, monetary earnings etc.

Nonsubtractive goods are violated when: “he is adversely affected in his abilities
to plan for the future,
to have knowledge of facts relevant to his projected actions,
to utilize his resources to fulfill his wants, and so forth.”

e.g. being lied to, cheated, stolen from, or defamed, suffering broken promises.

Additive goods: “the abilities and conditions required for increasing one’s level of purpose-
fulfillment and one’s capabilities for particular actions.” (Ibid.)

Violations of a person’s additive rights: attacking one’s self-esteem, denying someone of

education, discrimination (because of race, religion, or nationality), hindering a person’s
development of courage, temperance, and prudence through fear, oppression, the spread of
harmful and addicting drugs, spread of misinformation (fake news), ignorance, and
superstition particularly if these events hinder a person in acting towards his purposes.

Basic Rights:
-Right to Life
-Right to Physical Integrity
-Right to Mental Equilibrium
Nonsubtractive Rights:
Right to Well-Being
-Right to the Truth/Knowledge/Information
-Right to Property
Additive Rights:
-Right to Education
-Right to the Non-Discriminatory Practices

Right to freedom is also a human right. Therefore, it is violated if a person “is subjected to
violence, coercion, deception, or any procedures that attack or remove his informed control
of his behavior by his own uninformed choice.” (Ibid., 56-57)
 Right to have a personal autonomy
Right to privacy
Right to Freedom of Speech
Right to Freedom
Right to Travel
Right to freely exercise one’s belief or
religion

“In general, whenever a person violates any of these rights to well-being or freedom, his
action is morally wrong and he contradicts himself.” (Ibid., 57)

Conflict of Rights: How to deal with them?

Example:

1. The right of A to freedom may be in conflict with the right of B to well-being: A might
use his freedom to kill, rob, or insult B. Thus, the duty of other persons will have to be
not to interfere with A’s right to freedom; and at the same time prevent B from
suffering basic or specific harm.

2. Person’s rights to well-being may be in conflict with one another. Kantian dilemma:
would you lie to someone (violation of right to truth) in order to save another person
(duty to uphold the right to life)?

3. A person’s right to freedom may be in conflict with his own right to well beings. Suicide
or self-harm: my freedom (right to freedom) to kill myself (violation of my right to life).
The duty of other persons will have to be not to interfere with that person’s right to
freedom; and at the same time prevent him from suffering basic harm (killing himself).

For Gewirth, these dilemmas/conflicts proves the fact that HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT
ABSOLUTE, they are only prima facie. (see Ibid.) This means, there are circumstances in
which they may be justifiably overridden.

e.g. the right to life or right not to be killed must be narrowed down:

one has the right not to be killed, unless one commits murder (justifies death penalty for
heinous crimes) or one cannot kill an innocent person (justification against EJKs)
Thinking this way however leads one to assume the right to life is no longer a right of all
humans.

Even if human rights may be overridden, the PGC remains an absolute and categorical
moral principle. This is because, the PGC provides justification and criteria for the
overriding of some human rights i.e. the resolution of the conflict of rights.
Criterion 1: Removal of Transactional Inconsistency. One’s right to freedom is
limited/overridden if it infringes the freedom/well-being of another person. Why?
Because accdg to the PGC, act in accord with the generic rights of your recipients – your
action will always be limited by the action of other people particularly if you try to violate
or harm their rights.

X may coerce or harm another person Y in order to prevent Y from harming X or any other
people. (justification of self-defense or defending the person of another) It brings back the
equilibrium of mutual non-harm.

Criterion 2: degree if their necessity for action. “One right takes precedence over another
if the good that is the object of the former right is more necessary for the possibility of
action, and if that right cannot be protected without violating the latter right.” (Ibid, 59)

e.g. Remember the Kantian Dilemma? X knocks at your door holding a gun asking where
your mom is.

X has a right not to be lied to. You mom has the right not to be murdered. My mom’s right
to life overrides X’s right not to be lied to. Thus, I am justified in lying to X about the
whereabouts of my mom.

You are also justified in preventing someone from committing suicide particularly if there
are doubts concerning the emotional and cognitive functions of that person (a person may
be depressed, or under the influence of drug – all of which are impediments to the proper
conditions of freedom).