(Return to main path )

I want to add something else, just to make life difficult for Dee.

Dee made it clear when we started this discussion that she accepts Alan Gewirth's argument as the foundation for human rights. Gewirth believes that we are guilty of a formal contradiction if we deny basic rights to ourselves and others. I think he is mistaken on that point for the same reasons that Vera pointed out. Vera quoted Kai Nielsen's criticism of Gewirth.

But I want to point out that Gewirth went on to argue that in some cases, where the basic freedom and well-being of individuals is threatened, others who are able to do so have a strict moral obligation to provide aid. In the case of famine, for example, individuals and nations that can do so have a moral obligation to provide aid and those who are suffering have a right to that assistance.

My question to Dee is whether she is not only willing to accept Gewirth's argument for basic rights but also willing to accept the implication of that argument; namely, that individuals have a right to be provided with aid when their basic freedom and well being are threatened.