Related Ideas
| Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to return to the page you were on.
|
Concerns about abuse and exploitation lead to issues related to
moral and legal rights. Rights are not an important part of all
moral systems, but they are a part of some of the most influential
modern theories of morality. In general, an individual right can
be thought of as a moral safety device that is built 'around'
an individual to protect him or her from certain kinds of harm.
For example, rights are used to protect individuals from becoming
nothing more than the means to ends determined by other people.
This was done to blacks when they were used as a means to develop
the American economy. Individual rights also function as a limitation
on what can be done simply because doing it would make most people
better off.
Rights are commonly divided into two groups: positive and
natural. Positive rights are created by governments. Our
constitutional right to free speech is one example. Natural rights
are thought to exist independent of governments. We sometimes
appeal to natural rights in order to criticize governments. While
we often refer to rights in everyday conversation, there is no
agreement among philosophers as to which rights people
have or what the basis of our rights is. Some philosophers
base their theories of rights on reason alone. Others base them
on long-term social utility. Still others argue for a theological
basis.
Philosophers also disagree about just how strong rights are. On
one view, rights are best thought of as prima facie protections
that may be overridden by competing moral concerns. This view
may (although not necessarily) lead to a policy of 'balancing'
rights against other values. On another view, rights are best
thought of as "side constraints" on actions. This view
tends to strengthen rights and leads away from the balancing
metaphor.
Choosing between utilitarian and rights-based arguments is especially
difficult because both views have a basis in everyday moral thinking.
The common sense notion behind moral rights is that each individual
person is a separate being of great value. Rights are instituted
to protect individuals from harm. The common sense notion behind utilitarian
theories is that the goodness of what we do is at least partly
determined by its consequences. If the results are better, the
action is better. There is also a common sense belief that
we should try to do as much good as we can.
Each approach seems appropriate in some situations. But how are
they to be related or combined in a comprehensive moral theory?
In spite of this basis in common sense (or perhaps because of
it) it has proven impossible for philosophers to reach anything
close to agreement on the relative importance of rights and utility.
It has also been difficult to provide solid foundations
for either type of theory. Each is strong where the other is weak.
Each is open to difficult counter-examples. Each is commonly used
in political arguments. As you follow Ariadne's thread, try to
develop a clear view of where the different kinds of argument
come into conflict and how they apply to the ethics of hate speech.
Reference: For thoughts on the basis of individual rights,
see Social Justice ed. by Richard Brandt, Human Rights
by Alan Gewirth, Inalienable Rights by Diana Meyers, and
Persons, Rights, and the Moral community by Loren Lomasky.
For a full scale philosophical discussion of rights, see Judith
Thomson's The Realm of Rights.