THE NATURE OF RIGHTS IN ETHICAL DISCOURSE
else bears with respect to a right.
THE NATURE OF RIGHTS
● claim is the correlative thesis of rights and obligations. In this sense,
The nature of rights refers to the general idea of what rights
are and how they are justified.
● Rights have been described variously as entitlements,
interests, powers, claims and needs.
"a right is something of which no one may be deprived without a
grave affront to justice.” Rights can be thought of as "trumps which
take precedence over mere expediency or social benefit." - To quote
Maurice Cranston
Rights in moral philosophy and Political theory
Moral philosophy- is the branch of philosophy that studies what is
right or wrong for an individual person to do.
Political theory- is the branch of philosophy that studies the role,
functions, virtues and desirable organizational structures of groups of
people.
● Rights can be justified by moral or legal principles and rules
or in some cases a claim to both moral and legal
justification.
Example: If John has a right to X, then others have no justification in
interfering with John's pursuit or possession of X, so long as John's
exercise of his right to X does not infringe upon the rights of others.
Correlative obligations
Correlative obligation is a term that refers to the duty that someone
When we consider rights as justified claims, then built within the
a right creates an obligation in others to behave in a certain way, to
either provide goods or services or refrain from interference.
As an example, “the patient's right to informed consent obligates the
health care provider to provide appropriate information. If it is
possible to examine the obligation of the health care provider
regarding providing information to the patient, we could ascertain the
patient's right to informed consent, or vice versa. If we could examine
the patient's right to informed consent, then we could reason
ourselves to the obligation of the health care provider. The
correlative thesis implies that both the obligation and the right are
being justified by the same overarching principles or rules”.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RIGHTS REASONING
● Historically, the language of rights and their concepts came
into general political and moral discourse in the middle ages.
Political discourse.
Political discourse refers to the communication that takes place in
the context of politics, such as discussions, debates, and speeches
about government policies, laws, and decisions.
Moral discourse.
Moral discourse, on the other hand, refers to discussions and
debates about ethical and moral issues, such as questions about
right and wrong, justice, and fairness.
Natural Rights
 ● Natural rights were generally equated to the law of God and
found their most succinct expressions in form such as the
Golden Rule.
Golden Rule
The golden rule appears to have almost universal application and
understanding.
Islam - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother
that which he desires for himself. (Sunnah) Judaism
Judaism - What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.
(Talmud)
Buddhism - Hurt not others that which you would find hurtful.
(Udana-Varga)
Brahmanism - Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if
done to you. (Mahabharata)
Confucianism - Do not unto others that which you would not have
them do unto you. (Analects)
Taoism - Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your
neighbor's loss as your own loss. (T'ai Shang Xan Ying P'ien)
Christianity - All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even to them. (The Bible)
● In the writings of men such as Grotius and Locke.
● the legitimacy of nation states could be determined by the
respect they paid to the inherent natural rights of man
● Locke and Grotius held that God had given all things on
earth to men “in common” without any special right to
anybody.
Natural liberties - universal moral rights and are thought to exist
prior to and independent from the guarantees of a social contract or
institutionalized government.
● “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" is an expression of the universality of natural
liberties and moral rights
● These are often called negative rights in that they obligate
others from interference. The right to liberty is really a
statement of a personal right to be free from interference of
the exercise of that right, such as enslavement.
Human rights - Human rights, when differentiated from natural
rights, seem to flow from a recognition that all humans (homo
sapiens) are equally separated from the beasts of the field and are
unique unto themselves.
● There are basic needs that we all share and have come to
recognize and respect as a person's just due if he is to
remain human.
● Only beings such as humans can be thought of as having
rights, "Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for
right conduct." -philosopher Carl Cohen
● The ideas of Thomas Aquinas are somewhat echoed in the
works of John Locke, who wrote of self-evident principles
whose veracity the "mind can not doubt, as soon as it
understands the words." According to Locke, the law of
nature "... teaches all mankind that, being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
liberty, or possessions."
THE HISTORICAL TRADITIONS OF NATURAL LAW
• humans possess a rational nature as a gift from God
•natural laws are not dependent upon social contract
•natural laws are unchangeable and universal
• inability to effect natural rights does not distinguish them
•natural laws can be discovered even without a knowledge of God.
● CONTRACTARIANISM
" The political theory of authority claims that legitimate
authority of government must derive from the consent of the
governed, where the form and content of this consent derives
from the idea of contract or mutual agreement. "
- The moral theory of contractarianism claims that moral
norms derive their normative force from the idea of contract
or mutual agreement. Contractarians are skeptical of the
possibility of grounding morality or political authority in either
divine will or some perfectionist ideal of the nature of
humanity.
● CONSEQUENTIALISM
"is a theory that says whether something is good or bad
depends on its outcomes."
- An action that brings about more benefit than harm is good,
while an action that causes more harm than benefit is not.
The most famous version of this theory is utilitarianism.
● JERMY BENTHAM
- Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism focussed on which actions
were most likely to make people happy. If happiness was the
experience of pleasure without pain, the most ethical actions
were ones that caused the most possible happiness and the
least possible pain.
- consequentialism holds an action as ethical if and only if it
produces more beneficial/pleasure-causing outcomes than
negative or pain-causing ones.
● John Stuart Mill, a student of Bentham’s, disagreed. "He
believed it was too difficult for a society to run if it had to
consider the specific costs/benefits of every single action".
- Mill believed we should figure out which set of rules
would create the most happiness over an extended
period of time and then apply those in every
situation. This was his theory of rule utilitarianism.
*One problem with the theory is that it can be hard to measure
different benefits to decide which one is morally preferable.
*The other concern people express is the tendency of
consequentialism to use ‘ends justify the means’ logic. If all we are
concerned with is getting good outcomes, this can seem to justify
harming some people in order to benefit others.
● THOMAS HOBBES
- The father of modern contractarian theory
- Thomas Hobbes, who argued that any individual in a social
situation where there were no rules imposing restrictions on
anyone’s behavior would have a life that was “solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short.” The fundamental problem in a
society without agreed-​on rules is that of interpersonal
violence, which all of us can engage in and from which all of
us can suffer.
"War of Every man against Every man
- Self interest - Hobbes Envisioned a nightmare of violence
"where each individual decided only for himself and against
all others"
- Contractarianism, which stems from the Hobbesian line of
social contract thought, holds that persons are primarily
 self-interested, and that a rational assessment of the best * Rawls rejects utilitarianism
strategy for attaining the maximization of their self-interest
will lead them to act morally . - Utilitarianism permits and produces an unfair distribution of
burdens and benefits.
" To this war of every man against every man, this also is
consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notion of right and
wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is
● FAIR OPPORTUNITY RULE
no common power: there is no law, no injustice.--Justice or
injustice are faculties neither of the body nor the mind. They ( John Rawls)
were they might be in a man alone in the world, as well in his
senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in " no person should receive goods and services on the basis of
society, not in solitude" undeserved advantage nor be denied goods and services on the
basis of an undeserved disadvantage "

- An individual has a fair chance when her prospects for

● JOHN RAWLS: Justice is Fairness
"Justice must be associated with fairness and the moral
equality of persons, and not just reduced to what is socially
useful."
- Rawls offers a kinder and gentler arrangement as the
context for the social contract and envision an initial situation
known as the original position that is designed to promote
rational choice and fairness. In the original position all
individuals are free and equal.
- When the decision is made, it would need to be made, so
that the most disadvantaged individual would be willing to
accept that position.
basic principles of fairness
success in the pursuit of social positions are a function of her
level of native talent and willingness to use them, and are
not a function of her social class or background.
LEGAL RIGHT
● A right of any action of a person which the law permits and a
system of rules that the state enforces to regulate behavior
through penalties.
● Legal rights are created through constitutional guarantees,
legislative statutes, judicial review, and governmental
agencies.
● A product of human action ad can be made and unmade

● mutually disinterested = not taking an interest in one

another's interests
● Rational = taking the most effective means to given end ( a POSITIVE RIGHT
mutually assured distribution of goods)
 ● Let’s note first that positive rights are also claimed as
recipient rights
● Positive rights provide the person privilege and ability to
make a claim against another person or the government for
a particular good, service, or course of action.
● Only LEGAL PERSONS can receive LEGAL RIGHTS
THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE COMMONLY ATTRIBUTE
TO A LEGAL PERSON INCLUDE:
➢ Persons that can be injured
➢ Persons that can be thought to have interest
➢ Person that can be benefited
NEGATIVE RIGHTS
● If a person has a negative right, that person has the right to
be free to do some action or to do no action.
● It is also can be state as negative right if a person will affect
other person
MORAL RIGHTS
1. UNIVERSAL
2. EQUALITY AMONG HUMANS
3. BELIEVED NOT TO BE A PRODUCT OF HUMAN
CREATIVITY,BUT ARE INHERENT TO OUR SPECIES
THE PROBLEM OF RIGHTS
Peculiar aspects of humanity and our society in particular is
the multiplication of claims to personal rights. People advocate a
right to die, a right to health care, a right to smoke hemp products,
nonsmokers' rights, smokers' rights, animals rights, women's rights,
abortion rights, a right to die, a right to know, a right not to know, and
even a right to a guaranteed annual income with periodic paid
holidays. It is almost as if we have lost the ability to provide
arguments for something without appealing in the language of rights.
We are either living in an age of sudden awareness where we have
evolved and are now aware of a whole new set of rights, or we are
confusing what we want with what is somehow our due.
In order to discriminate between wants and rights there must
first be an understanding and agreement as to the nature of what we
are talking about. Prior to some common agreements regarding
definitions, it is unclear how we are to judge between the competing
claims. It is clear that human imagination and creativity have more
claims to rights than we could possibly honor.
CONCLUSION
When we claim these things as rights (right to life, free
speech, a jury trial) we create immense obligations in others that
cannot be denied by mere inconvenience or expense.The English
language is rich in rights language and nothing seems to confer
power on these basic claims to the same extent as framing them as voluntary contractual agreement but to society as a whole. Our
rights. Regardless of whether you have come to believe that rights failure to form a certain base for the development of human rights
are innate or formed as a result of a social contract, they remain an does not negate their importance. The respect of human rights is the
important and vital aspect of the legal and ethical health practice. independent standard by which we judge the merit of nations and the
actions of individuals.
In the foreseeable future, all patient care providers will be
discussing the issue of rights as they relate to the patients we
serve.The concept of human rights, with their attendant creation of
obligations, must be limited only to fundamental human needs. Three
basic considerations that should be examined prior to declaring new
human rights include:

● not all human wants can or should be converted to the status

of human rights
● human creativity allows us to imagine more rights than we
can fulfill
● the dilution of human rights by adding new ones threatens
established claims

The most important of these is dilution, where our creativity

as humans causes us to claim rights well beyond limits that can be
honored and thereby reduces the meaning of rights as a concept.
Soren Kierkegaard, (1813-1855) the father of Christian
existentialism, was correct in asserting that ethics should not
become merely a statistical exercise. The daily will of the people is a
fickle foundation. It is clear that in this beginning they came to forget
that the most basic of our human rights is the right to be recognized
and respected as equal human beings.

In our daily practice as health care providers, more good will

be done by honoring the basic human rights that we already have
come to know by experience and reason than in imagining a whole
host of new ones. Our professions place upon us special obligations
and additional duties to protect the rights of those we serve. These
rights form part of the traditions and conditions of practice and bind
us not only to our patients with whom we have entered into a