 |
| Replies |
 (Return) |
| Moral Rights |
| Dee
Speaking
|
 It seems to me that there are good reasons,
both moral and prudential, for adopting some set of constraints on what can be done to people (by government or other individuals). These constraints, or a subset of them, we can call moral rights.
There is a subset of these moral rights that we can call basic rights.These moral rights are "natural" in that the reasons for their adoption do not assume the existence of a state and they are not necessarily enacted or established by a state. They are also natural in that they depend on natural facts about people -- for example, that people can be harmed in various ways, that they have thoughts about how to live, that they have interests that can be fostered or injured. The reasons for adopting these moral rights are general enough that they apply to all people. After all, everyone can be harmed, everyone can make plans for their life, everyone can adopt some ideal of the good, and so on. We might also say that the reason they are adopted is that everyone has a degree of intrinsic value that provides a reason for protecting that person from harm. By the way, I think it is a meaningful and important question whether similar arguments can be made on behalf of some animals. For a plausible argument in favor of animal rights, take a look at Tom Regan's book The Case for Animal Rights. |
| Ariadne's Home | Contact Ariadne at: | Justice Home |
| Justice Bibliography |  |
Justice Contents |
|
||