Rights and Duties

Rights theory - Rights are justified claims against another

person’s behavior

The rights of one person implies the duties of another person

In theory, moral rights are:

• natural (not created or imposed by another person)
• universal (do not change, are not relative to the time or place)
• equal (the same for all people)
• inalienable (cannot be handed over to another person) (such as
selling yourself into slavery)
Every social issue involves rights

Source: http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/fileadmin/user_upload/ETC-
Hauptseite/Menschenrechte_lernen/POOL/UDHR_Short_version.pdf
 Every social issue involves rights

http://www.dpcdsb.org/NR/rdonlyres/8B86F17D-99F7-4AE7-888E-
400D70906564/58234/211_A_Summary_of_Charter_Rights.pdf
Rights and Duties
The rights of one person implies the duties of another person

Rights can be positive or negative:

Positive rights (also known as claim rights)

• Obligates others to act on behalf of the right holder
• Rights to healthcare, education

Negative rights (also known as liberty rights)

• Forbids others to act against the right holder
• Rights to life, liberty and property which society must recognize and
respect (rights not to be interfered with)
Liberty

Liberty allows us to act as we please, to do what we want

Liberty refers to the freedom from restrictions imposed by authorities

• the absence of external obstacles or constraints

“Each person has the sovereign right to live in any way he or she pleases as
long as the equal right of others is not violated” (Rohmann, 1999)

Liberty, free will and autonomy are synonymous

Autonomy
Autonomy is the power to guide our life through our own free choices.

Autonomy is the capacity to determine for yourself the principles that you will
live by.

Autonomy can also refer to your ability to live according to your own plan of
life.

“We want our lives to be authentic, to reflect our own values, rather than
those imposed on us from the outside – even if we are not always happier
as a result.” (Shafer-Landau, 2020, p. 65)
Liberty-limiting principles – and the arguments against
them
Grounds that may be advanced to justify the limitation of individual liberty:

The harm principle is the most widely accepted liberty-limiting principle.

Harm to others includes personal injury and damage to the general welfare of
society. But… sometimes some harm is acceptable, such as in utilitarian
calculations of net good and in collateral damage.

The principle of legal paternalism – to protect individuals from themselves

(motorcycle helmet laws, for example). But… government does not have the
right to meddle in the private lives of its citizens
Paternalism
To be paternalistic is to assume the rights and privileges of a parent – toward
another adult.

Paternalism has us limit the liberty of others, for their own good, against
their will

It is treating autonomous individuals as children, as if we, and not they, were

best suited to making the crucial decisions of their lives.
Harm
To be paternalistic is to assume the rights and privileges of a parent – toward
another adult.

Paternalism has us limit the liberty of others, for their own good, against
their will

It is treating autonomous individuals as children, as if we, and not they, were

best suited to making the crucial decisions of their lives.
Other liberty-limiting principles – and the arguments
against them
Grounds that may be advanced to justify the limitation of individual liberty:

The offense principle – offensive behavior is understood as (public)

behavior that causes shame, embarrassment, disgust or other forms of
psychological discomfort in onlookers. Sometimes advanced to protect
non-consenting adults from offensive displays (who decides on what is
offensive?)

The principle of legal moralism – to enforce morals. Question is… what is

immoral? Victimless crimes are discussed in legal moralism. To accept legal
moralism is to accept the tyranny of the majority
Applied Ethics

Analysis of specific relevant and controversial moral issues

• Controversial – there are significant groups of people both for and against the
issue
• Distinctly moral – deals with universally obligatory practices - not just a social
policy issue or issues confined to specific societies

In theory – simply consult the normative principle of choice to decide on the issue.
In practice - there are many rival normative principles which can result in different
conclusions

To break the stalemate, we consult several normative principles to see where the
weight of the evidence lies (Fieser)
Societal issues involving limits on our liberty

• Censorship

• Same sex marriage

• Sexual morality

• Drug control
Prominent Views on Pornography
Efforts to place restrictions on pornography give rise to complaints of
unwarranted censorship and unjustified intrusion into
individual liberty (the absence of external obstacles or
constraints).

Question… is a government justified in limiting the access of

consenting adults to pornographic material?
Is censorship of pornography justified? – Some say yes
All 4 liberty limiting principles/arguments are used in support of limiting access

The harm principle is a widely accepted liberty-limiting principle. Often used in

the context of victims of sexual violence at the hands of those who have been
influenced by pornography

The offense principle – offensive behavior is understood as (public) behavior that

causes shame, embarrassment, disgust or other forms of psychological
discomfort in onlookers

The principle of legal moralism (the notion that there is widespread consensus
that pornography is morally repugnant

The principle of legal paternalism suggests that those exposed to pornography

will be harmed by such exposure
Is censorship of pornography justified – Some say no
The principle of legal paternalism is an unacceptable liberty-limiting principle –
the government should not meddle in the private affairs of its citizens

The principle of legal moralism is an unacceptable liberty-limiting principle – to

enforce the morals of the majority is in effect allowing the tyranny of the
majority

A government can rightfully restrict the activity of consenting adults only on the
grounds that such activity is harmful to others

The administration of censorship brings the possibility that the power of the
censor will be abused (a slippery slope)
Feminist view on Pornography
Feminists do not ordinarily object to sexual explicitness that is found in
pornography. Rather there are 2 concerns:

1. Pornography typically portrays women in degrading and

dehumanizing ways (erotica is o.k., pornography is not)

2. Contrary to long-standing liberal belief, there is evidence that the

production and proliferation of pornography violates Mill’s harm principle
Prominent Views on Sexual Morality

Conventional view
• Non-marital sex is immoral

Liberal view
• Sex for purposes other than procreation is not immoral
Social Utility and Conventional Sexual Morality
Social utility defense
• A stable family life is essential for the proper raising of children
and the consequent welfare of society as a whole
• The exclusive availability of sex within marriage will lead
most people to get and stay married
• The unavailability of extramarital sex will keep marriages
strong

Criticisms of the social utility defense

• Stable family units are not so essential
• Non-marital sex does not undercut family life
• Premarital sex can prepare one for marriage
Natural Law Theory and Conventional Sexual Morality

Actions are morally appropriate insofar as they accord with our nature (actions
are natural)
• Humans should do what we do best (efficiency model)
• Humans should do what enhances survival and reproduction (fitness model)

The conventional sexual morality view suggests that sex that is not for the
purpose of procreation is unnatural and is thereby immoral.

Criticisms of Natural Law Theory

Non-marital sex may legitimately serve other important human purposes:

• Expression of love
• Source of intense recreational pleasure
Liberal view of sexual morality
What is morally objectionable?

According to the Liberal view, no sexual activity is immoral unless a well-

established moral rule or principle is transgressed. Grounds for
moral condemnation:
• Infliction of harm (physical or psychological)
• Using one another
• Promise breaking (adulterous behavior)
The feminist critique of sexual morality
Feminists typically renounce conventional sexual morality.

A central feminist goal is to eradicate structures of oppression and feminists

consider conventional sexual morality to be an oppressive value
system by imposing:
• A norm of compulsory heterosexuality
• An inegalitarian conception of marriage and traditional sex
roles
• A double standard (a standard for both men and women but only women
are expected to follow
Same-sex marriage
The most prominent arguments against same-sex marriage asserts:

• the societal acceptance would have detrimental social consequences

• undermine the institution of marriage
• destruction of family values

The most prominent arguments for same-sex marriage are based on:
• Equality
• Heterosexuals who cannot or do not want to procreate are allowed to
marry

Opponents of same-sex marriage are concerned that it may open the door
to polygamy or other forms of plural marriage (slippery slope argument)
Another Liberty Issue
The costs of enforcing prohibitory drug laws and conducting the drug
war are constantly escalating, and these add to the costs of drug abuse.

Is a government justified in adopting measures designed

to prevent or discourage adults from using drugs?

Does it matter for what purpose a drug is being used?

The Harm Principle
The harm principle allows interference with individual liberty in order to
prevent harm to others but only in those cases where coercive
legislation causes less harm than the harms which would occur in the
absence of such legislation.

The debate about drug legislation centers on disputes regarding:

• The harms caused by drug abuse and addiction
• The harms prevented by current drug laws
• The harms caused by current policies/laws

Can you identify harms based on the 3 categories noted

above?
Harms
Some policy makers argue the majority of harms related to
drug abuse are caused by current drug policies:
• Financial costs of the war on drugs
• Crimes caused by addicts who need money to support
their habits
• Overloaded judicial system
• Costs of housing jail inmates
• Police corruption
• Costs on inner-city neighborhoods
• Health risks to addicts due to the lack of quality control
over drugs
Principle of Legal Paternalism
Anti-paternalistic arguments for legalization

• Adults have the right to self-determination (autonomy) unless

doing so violates someone else’s rights.

• Adults have the right to use drugs recreationally those who

cause harm to others should be held responsible and punished

Paternalistic arguments for legalization (related to Mill’s view on

selling yourself into slavery:
• The principle of freedom (cannot be free not to be free)
• Individuals must be protected against making and acting on a choice
that will result in their forfeiting their freedom to make future
choices
The theory of the voluntariness of choices made by
addicted cigarette smokers:
A person does not want to want what they want.

If a person resents being motivated in a certain way, resents acting in

accordance with those motivations, would prefer to be the kind of person
motivated in a different way, then those motivations are not viewed as his or
hers

According to this line of reasoning, addicted smokers are not acting

autonomously.

In that case, laws intended to prevent or discourage them from smoking need
not constitute violations of their right to self-determination.