 |
| Replies |
 Dee (main path) |
 Ayesha |
Dee |
 Comment |
| Moral Rights |
| Dee
Speaking
|
 I believe -- and I think most moral philosophers would agree -- that rights are a necessary part of a
complete moral theory. I also agree that we must have a theory of the good. After all, how would we develop our ideals without one? But in very important ways the right is prior to the good. That's my fundamental problem with Ann's utilitarian theory. Ann would derive rights from the good. I would establish rights first as limitations on what can be done in pursuit of the good. A theory of rights is crucial because it tells us what is required and what is prohibited. It sets the boundaries. It acts as a sort of minimal moral system. The ideal person, of course, does more than respect the rights of others. The ideal person will go far beyond that in love, charity, generosity, and in the pursuit of his or her personal and social ideals. Most libertarians encourage all these things. But they aren't required of us in the way that respecting rights is required. Rights are the irreducible core of a moral system. Quote Lomasky p. 52 in the importance of rights. Let me suggest why I think people have rights. It may be because people have the unique capacity to define, plan, and live a good life. They also have a capacity to be harmed. Moral rights are crucial because they protect people form harm and allow them to pursue their individual plans and projects. One of the most interesting libertarian writers on this issue is Loren Lomasky. He talks about people having projects and how rights are a way to protect them from harm and from interference with those projects. I'm saying all this because I think that it is on the theory of rights that Rawls is deficient. I don't think he has a firm foundation for individual rights; and, in the end, I think he sells out individual rights completely. I'll say more about that later. |
| Ariadne's Home | Contact Ariadne at: | Justice Home |
| Justice Bibliography |  |
Justice Contents |
|
||