MIDTERM: HUMAN RIGHTS

Introduction: The definition of a "right" is a well-founded claim. Different historical

bases have been used to ground various rights. John Locke believed that the free gifts
of nature belong to no one, but if someone mixed their labor with them, they
acquired a right to private property. Marxists believe in private ownership of
consumer goods but not producer goods. Some rights, such as the right to life,
liberty, and free speech, are considered inalienable and rooted in human nature. The
question remains as to how many and which rights fall under this category and
whether the state has the right to curtail them in emergencies for a limited period.
RIGHTS
The classification of rights based on their foundations: positive and natural rights.
Natural rights are based on human nature, such as the right to food, clothing, and
shelter, and are considered inalienable. Positive rights, on the other hand, are
granted by law, such as the right to vote. While the state may legally prevent a
person from exercising their natural rights, it cannot remove their claim to them. In
an emergency, the state may temporarily suspend certain natural rights for the
common good, such as freedom of speech during times of war.
DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
 Initial human rights included freedom, security, property, and resistance to
oppression
 Later versions added concerns of dignity and wellbeing, considered as rights to
be guaranteed
 First generation human rights include civil and political rights, such as freedom
of speech, right to life, and prohibition of torture
 Second-generation rights require government intervention, and include social
rights such as right to work, social protection, and education
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) upholds both first and second-
generation rights, accompanied by two UN international pacts
 Third-generation rights revolve around the principle of equality and non-
discrimination, including environmental law and bioethics
 The source of law in human rights is the existence of the individual, while in
democracies it derives from the general will
 Democracy may come into conflict with human rights, so independent
safeguards are necessary to avoid violation by the state
A CRITICAL LOOK AT SOME SPECIFIC “HUMAN RIGHTS”
 Material goods require intelligent beings to take care of them and develop
them.
 Some things like fruit, vegetables, air, and water are readily available in nature,
but most other things require human effort to produce.
 State ownership of industries can assure the efficient management of producer
goods, but recent human experience shows that humans do not take care of
things that do not belong to them.
 Private ownership of producer goods can be beneficial as it encourages
competition, quality control, efficiency, and research into better methods of
production.
  A blanket ban on all private ownership of producer goods or advocating only
state ownership would be disastrous.
 Consumerism and the quest for happiness through having more can lead to a
suffocating and stifling consumer mentality.
 Ayn Rand and those who share her views see sharing as an anti-value, and all
appeals to rights and duties, love, and concern for the poor as merely
subjective.
 The purpose of human life and development may be to "be more" rather than
"having more," and sharing can enhance our social being and be a reasonable
respite from the harm we inflict on society and nature.
THE RIGHT TO LIFE
 The fundamental right to life is the basis of all other human rights.
Proponents: Various human rights organizations, philosophers, and activists.
 No one has the right to directly destroy an innocent human being.
Proponents: Various moral and religious traditions, anti-abortion advocates, and
human rights activists.
 Legitimate defense of individuals and societies allows for striking back or even
killing an unjust aggressor.
Proponents: Various legal systems, military organizations, and proponents of
the right to self-defense.
 Violence used in self-defense should be moderate and not exceed what is
necessary.
Proponents: Various moral and religious traditions, advocates of nonviolent
resistance, and proponents of the right to self-defense.
 Three types of violence exist: structural, insurrectional, and repressive violence.
Proponents: Johan Galtung, a Norwegian sociologist and peace researcher who
first proposed the concept of structural violence, and other peace and conflict
studies scholars
 Structural violence is created by unjust social or other structures.
Proponents: Johan Galtung and other peace and conflict studies scholars.
 Insurrectional violence occurs when oppressed people strike back desperately in
rioting and other forms of civil unrest.
Proponents: Johan Galtung and other peace and conflict studies scholars.
 Repressive violence takes place when the State calls in crack troops to repress
people.
Proponents: Johan Galtung and other peace and conflict studies scholars
 The cycle of continually escalating violence results from repressive violence.
Proponents: Johan Galtung and other peace and conflict studies scholars.
 Dominant classes rule over every aspect of life, including how key words in the
vocabulary are to be defined and used.
Proponents: Various critical theorists and sociologists, including Michel Foucault,
Antonio Gramsci, and Pierre Bourdieu
 Violence is frequently the first reaction to an unwelcome development.
Proponents: Various scholars in psychology, sociology, and conflict studies who
study the causes of violence.
 It is praiseworthy to call for reconciliation, dialogue, and healing instead of
violence.
Proponents: Various peace activists, religious leaders, and conflict resolution
practitioners.
  Violence in certain cases is of a qualitatively different stamp for the oppressed
and the oppressor.
Proponents: Various critical theorists, sociologists, and human rights activists.
 Violence of the oppressor universally dehumanizes both its victims and its
perpetrators.
Proponents: Various critical theorists, sociologists, and human rights activists.
 Violence of the oppressed prevents the oppressor from dehumanizing himself.
Proponents: Various critical theorists, sociologists, and human rights activists.

HUMAN DUTIES

DEONTOLOGY
Deontological ethics is about following rules, which can be religious laws or
philosophical principles like those of Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant believed that
morality is grounded in reason itself, and that the demands of morality can be
discovered through rational reflection. He believed that a good will is the only thing
that can be called good without qualification, and that reason is imparted to us as a
practical faculty which should influence our will. Duty includes the notion of a good
will, and securing one's own happiness is a duty indirectly. While all human persons
have an inclination towards happiness, promoting one's happiness from duty rather
than inclination is what gives conduct true moral truth.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF NORMS

Ethical norms are fundamental and can be used to derive other norms, whereas
non-ethical norms are not directly related to morality. Ethical norms are derived
from ethical values, which are also fundamental. To derive ethical norms, non-ethical
propositions must also be considered, as the gravity of an action may depend on the
context. For example, dissolving someone in acid is forbidden because it amounts to
killing them, but in a hypothetical scenario where someone could survive dissolution,
the prohibition to kill others would not necessarily imply the prohibition to dissolve
them.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN VALUES AND NORMS

Values and norms are two distinct concepts in ethics. Values refer to what is
considered good, desirable, or worthy of pursuit in a particular society or culture.
Norms, on the other hand, are specific rules or expectations that guide behavior
within a society or culture. Norms can be prescriptive, telling individuals what they
should do, or prohibitive, telling individuals what they should not do.

An example of a value is honesty. Honesty is generally considered a positive quality in

most cultures, and people are encouraged to be honest in their dealings with others.
An example of a norm is the expectation that individuals should not steal. This norm
is a prohibition that guides behavior, and individuals who violate this norm may face
negative consequences such as legal punishment or social ostracism.

It is important to note that while there is some overlap between values and norms,
they are not interchangeable concepts. Values are broader and more general, while
norms are more specific and concrete. Additionally, not all values can or should be
translated into norms, as the ability to act on a value may depend on various
situational factors.
ROSS AND PRIMA FACIE DUTIES
 Prima facie duties: Ross claimed that there are several basic duties that we owe
to other people, including duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice,
beneficence, and self-improvement. These are prima facie duties, meaning that
they are duties that we ought to fulfill, all things being equal.

 Actual duties: However, Ross also recognized that there are situations where
two or more of these duties conflict, making it difficult or impossible to fulfill all
of them. In these cases, we must weigh the different duties and decide which
ones take priority, giving rise to actual duties.

 Moral pluralism: Ross's theory of prima facie duties is rooted in moral pluralism,
which holds that there are multiple, irreducible values that can come into
conflict. In other words, there is no single principle or rule that can guide all
moral decision-making.

 Agent-centered morality: Ross believed that morality is fundamentally agent-

centered, meaning that our primary moral obligation is to act in accordance
with our own moral judgment and conscience.

 Prima facie duties as default: Ross argued that prima facie duties serve as
default obligations, which means that we should assume that they apply in any
given situation unless there is a good reason to think otherwise.

 Obligation and rightness: Ross distinguished between obligation and rightness.

Obligation refers to the duties that we have to fulfill, while rightness refers to
the moral status of our actions. A particular action may be morally right, but we
may not be obligated to perform it.

 Supererogation: Ross also recognized the concept of supererogation, which

refers to actions that go above and beyond what is required by our duties.
Supererogatory actions are praiseworthy, but they are not obligatory.

 Ross's critiques of Kantianism and consequentialism: Ross argued that both

Kantianism and consequentialism are inadequate moral theories because they
fail to account for the complexity and plurality of moral obligations.

 Open-endedness: Ross believed that moral reasoning is open-ended, meaning

that there is no set procedure or algorithm that can determine the right course
of action in all situations. Instead, moral judgment requires sensitivity to the
particular circumstances of each case.

 Practical guidance: Despite the open-endedness of moral reasoning, Ross

believed that his theory of prima facie duties can provide practical guidance for
moral decision-making by identifying the key moral considerations that we
ought to take into account in any given situation.
JOHN RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE
 Original Position: The original position is a hypothetical scenario where
individuals come together to design a just society. In this scenario, individuals
are assumed to be rational and self-interested, but they are also assumed to be
behind a veil of ignorance, where they don't know their own social status,
wealth, or natural abilities.

 Veil of Ignorance: The veil of ignorance is a key component of Rawls' theory. It

is a way to ensure fairness in the original position by eliminating any knowledge
of personal characteristics that could lead to bias or unfairness.

 Two Principles of Justice: Rawls' theory of justice rests on two principles: the
liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principle states that
each person should have an equal right to basic liberties, while the difference
principle states that inequalities in society should be arranged to benefit the
least advantaged.

 Maxi-min Principle: The maxi-min principle is another key element of Rawls'

theory. It states that in the original position, individuals should choose the
society that maximizes the minimum level of welfare.

 Primary Goods: In Rawls' theory, primary goods are the basic goods that
everyone needs in order to pursue their own goals and interests. These include
basic rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth, and self-respect.

 Reflective Equilibrium: Reflective equilibrium is the process of finding moral

principles by balancing our intuitions about particular cases with our more
general beliefs about morality. In Rawls' theory, the original position is designed
to help us achieve a reflective equilibrium.

 Distributive Justice: Distributive justice is the idea that resources and benefits
should be distributed fairly in society. Rawls' theory is primarily concerned with
distributive justice.

 Social Contract: Rawls' theory is often described as a social contract theory

because it assumes that individuals would come together to create a just
society if they were free to do so.

 Difference between Moral and Natural Persons: Rawls distinguishes between

moral persons and natural persons. Moral persons are individuals who are
capable of reasoning about justice and fairness, while natural persons are
individuals with particular characteristics and abilities.

 Just Institutions: Rawls' theory argues that a just society is one where
institutions and social structures are designed to promote fairness and equality.
This includes institutions like the legal system, the economy, and the education
system.