Rights

(This lecture draws heavily from Lawrence Hinman, Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory (2^nd ed.), pp. 243-284, and Mr. Hinman’s website at http://ethics.acusd.edu)

1. The notion of "human rights" has been extremely important in the United States, especially over the past 50 years.

2. Some of the basic documents of the United States are framed in terms of rights: the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.

3. More recently, we have seen a proliferation of rights-centered activity: the Civil Rights movement, equal rights for women, gay rights, children’s rights, Native American rights, etc.

4. Rights theories have been justified in a number of ways:

• Self-evidence: ("We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal…")

• Divine Law: "… that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that are among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

• Natural Law: More frequently used in the Catholic tradition, but also by others. Often we try to read the "Book of Nature" for clues that are embedded in the nature. Example: family and parenthood appear to be universals across many species, including humans.

• Human Nature: Find some aspect of human nature that is common across many or most known cultures. Example: marriage.

5. Rights can be set up in one of two ways: as "negative rights" or as "positive rights."

6. Negative rights are phrased in negative terms: One should not kill another person, or one should not keep somebody from exercising free speech. Note that this does not mean that one must necessarily help the other person, however. While I cannot hurt somebody, it does not mean that I must help somebody else who is being attacked. Similarly, "free speech" in this context does not mean that I have to help somebody speak out, only that I cannot keep them from doing so.

7. A common criticism of negative rights is that, for some people, they are "virtual rights":

• If I am so poor that I own nothing, what good is a "right" that keeps people from stealing my property?

• If health care is a "right" for all if only rich people can afford it?

8. Positive rights, on the other hand, do impose obligations on others to assist.

• Here, if somebody is seen as attacking another person, there is an obligation to assist. In the case of free speech, there is an obligation to provide air time. (This is why cable channels are obligated to provide "public access programming," so that pretty much anybody can have media access, as long as it is not obscene. We see this in the movie "Wayne’s World"!

• More seriously, welfare rights and emergency health care on demand at public hospitals are examples of positive rights in action.

9. A question emerges, however, as to who should guarantee positive rights. Often it falls on the government, which is (at least in the U.S.) supposed to carry out the will of the people.

• Libertarians, however, find this objectionable.

• While they support the right of individuals to help anybody they wish, the idea of being forced to do so disturbs them.

• Some also think that it may insult individuals by not allowing them enough opportunity to solve their own problems, thus making them dependant on the state.

• Finally, there is the problem of who decides what is best for those who need assistance.

10. One central problem of rights theories is determining who, or what, actually has rights. All humans? Future generations? Animals? Nature?

• In the case of animals, or unborn children, or Nature, who can speak for them?

• What about people in jail? To what extent should their rights be curtailed?

11. Note, too, that rights (at least as understood in the U.S.) tend to be based on an atomistic view of human beings, of one against one or one against many. There can be conflicts between the interest of the individual and the interest of society.

12. Examples: controversies about the right to privacy for people infected with the HIV virus, or people who have been convicted of sex crimes in the past.

13. In other countries, especially non-Western ones, there can be less emphasis on the rights of the individual.

14. Mr. Hinman concludes: "Rights establish the minimum standards for our interactions with other people, a moral ‘floor’ below which we do not want to sink in our interactions with others. [However] rights do not tell the whole story of morality, especially in the area of personal relationships."

15. In other words, "rights" tend to govern interactions between individuals and/or groups of people who do not really know one another. They are less appropriate for use with friends or family members, where other forms of moral obligation may apply.