(Return to main path )

I also want to mention a philosopher that Vera referred to -- Thomas Scanlon. He calls himself a contractualist.

Scanlon has tried to develop a criterion for moral wrongness. When is an act morally wrong? In a paper he published in 1982 he offered the following definition of 'wrong.'

An act is wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any system of rules for the general regulation of behavior which no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced general agreement. [Thomas Scanlon, "Contractualism and Utilitarianism," 1982]

Scanlon assumes that people want to be able to justify themselves to others and to develop a set of rules that all consider justifiable. He doesn't discuss moral rights in that paper, but it seems to me that the criterion he is proposing here could incorporate rights into a moral system quite easily. For example, it would be very difficult for anyone to reasonably reject a rule against torture if they are trying to justify themselves to others and develop a set of rules to live by.

I think Scanlon may be on to something.