RIGHTS

NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE RIGHTS......................................................................................................4 PRIMA FACIE RIGHTS.............................................................................................................................8 RIGHTS (ARGUMENT Section of OUTLINE).......................................................................................

RIGHTS are a justified claim to a certain kind of treatment from others, to help from others or to be left alone by others. We begin our understanding of ethical theories by first looking at RIGHTS THEORY. Early rights theory was written as hiloso hers sought olitical and legal rights for e!eryone. "hiloso hers such as Hobbes and #ocke ro osed that we find in the natural state of $an% so$e conditions or traits that can be used to &ustify rights in the ethical sense. With that ethical &ustification% it would be ossible to argue for legal rights for e!eryone. Today% we so clearly belie!e in rights that we seek no &ustification. we &ust ha!e rights. So% to begin% we look at Hobbes and #ocke who tried to i$agine what hu$an beings would be like in a state of nature% before go!ern$ents and ci!ili'ation% and we note how this early hiloso hy guided rights theory e$bodied in ($erican thinking. We then look at $ore recent !iews on rights.

Thomas Hobbes (1 !!"1#$%&

One of the earliest thinkers to discuss rights. Hobbes was a olitical hiloso her. He was $ostly concerned with go!ern$ents and the relationshi of go!ern$ents to society. )eing a olitical hiloso her was $ost rele!ant at his ti$e because Euro e was then only beginning to reali'e that $onarchy was not the only for$ of go!ern$ent% and Hobbes had a great hand in bringing about this reali'ation. *nder the $onarchial syste$ that re!ailed in Euro e% kings were resu$ed to ha!e ethical di!ine rights% rights gi!en to kings by God. The conce t of ordinary eo le ha!ing indi!idual rights was strongly ad!ocated by Hobbes. In #e!iathan% ublished in +,-+% Hobbes $aintained that 'an in a state of nature has the ri(ht to do )hat is necessary to protect himself and to (et )hat he can (et ho)e*er he can (et it, e*eryman for himself. I$agine a ri$iti!e $an li!ing on a tro ical island with fellow island nati!es. E!ery day is a fight for e.istence% to get &ust a decent coconut for su er. In this state of nature the strongest or the $ost de!ious gets the coconuts. )ut this is

not a desirable life for $ost% so $en gi!e u their natural right to those /go!ern$ents.0 who contract / ro$ise0 to bring eace and rotection. +, -,T .S/ ,R 0.,T/ H,11/S ,- 23S/ ST.+I/S. Students read Hobbes and $isunderstand. Hobbes is saying that once u on a ti$e in the days of ca!e$en% before ci!ili'ation% it was e!ery $an for hi$self. )ut we do not li!e in a state of nature. We are not ca!e$en. We li!e in ci!ili'ed society% we ha!e gi!en u this e!ery$an for hi$self rights scenario as soon as we are born in society. E!ery$an for hi$self only a lies to a world with co$ lete disorder.

4ohn 5ocke (1#67"1$89&

#ocke disagreed with Hobbes about the conditions of ri$iti!e hu$ans. #ocke $aintained that there was ne!er such a state of nature where e!ery $an is for hi$self alone. Instead% #ocke e$ hasi'es that hu$ans are social ani$als. The $ost ri$iti!e $an is art of a coo erating society. Such coo eration is how hu$ans as ani$als sur!i!ed in nature. 1uoting #ocke in his +,23 Second Treatise of 4i!il Go!ern$ent 5 In a natural state all were equal and independent, and none had a right to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. 6otice how this !iew is o osed to the Hobbesian state of nature. (lso% for #ocke% Go!ern$ent does not o!er7ride society or indi!idual rights% go!ern$ent $ust be accountable. One of the $ost i$ ortant ele$ents of #ockean rights is his !iew on ro erty and labor. #ocke $aintained5 When we $i. our labor with the natural world% we blend art of oursel!es with that labor. That is how we co$e to own ro erty% ethically. So% labor accounts for $ost of the ro erty !alue of an ob&ect% but these rights are li$ited by our ability to consu$e 8 our ability to roduce goods77to re!ent goods fro$ being s oiled% or wasted. If we can labor to own $ore than we can use% then we no longer ha!e a right to that ro erty. We cannot &ust let what we ha!e go to waste while other eo le do without because they cannot roduce. )ut goods of greater durability can be e.changed for those that s oil. 9oney is durable% so we can e.change $oney for s oilable goods. )ut once we begin to work earnestly and ethically accu$ulate $ore of these !aluable durable goods :$oney; than our neighbors% then we $ust ha!e so$e

$eans of rotecting these sur lus durable goods so that others wont take the$. Go!ern$ent arises as a $eans to rotect the durable goods that you ha!e e.changed for the fruits of your labor. In other words% once $oney co$es into use% go!ern$ent beco$es necessary to rotect ro erty. )efore $oney and other such !aluable durable goods :&ewels% recious art% etc.; $an ke t what he could use and no $ore. )ecause go!ern$ent arises to rotect ro erty of go!erned% then5 Property precedes government and government cannot dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily.

.-IT/+ ST3T/S +/253R3TI,- ,: I-+/;/-+/-2/

In +<<,% we find a for$ulation of rights borrowed fro$ hiloso hers such as Hobbes and #ocke% in our own =eclaration Of Inde endence. This docu$ent s ecifies5 I-35I/-315/ RIGHTS to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away or ignored. They are rights you cannot gi!e u . Inalienable rights are a cornerstone of #ockean rights and ro!e !ery i$ ortant to rights today. )e aware% rights s ecified in the *.S. 4onstitution are le(al rights. These rights were originally for$ulated on the basis of ethical ri(hts. You cannot use legal rights to &ustify ethical rights. Instead% ethical rights are used to &ustify legal rights. *sing our constitutional rights to &ustify ethical rights is an unethical ers ecti!e. If you want to say we should ha!e a right because it is written in our *.S. constitution% this is like saying that eo le outside of the *.S. do not get or should not also get those rights. Indeed our constitution is irrele!ant. When discussing rights be careful not to confuse ethical rights with legal rights. ( legal right is not an ethical right. Ethical rights are the reasons for legal rights. #egal rights are not reasons for ethical &udg$ents about rights.

Human Ri(hts
Hu$an rights are the rights internationally recogni'ed by the *nited 6ations. (ccording to the *nited 6ations Hu$an Rights 4o$$ittee% all hu$an beings ha!e so$e basic $oral rights% so$e of which are5

 right not to be killed the right not to be har$ed the right to liberty :freedo$ of $o!e$ent and benign action.; In this course% we will not use this language of hu$an rights. Instead% rights are hu$an rights% unless you look at ani$al rights. (ni$al rights rarely co$e u in relation to co$ uters% so we &ust will refer to rights.

-/G3TI</ 3-+ ;,SITI</ RIGHTS

In contemporary ethics of ri(hts, a distinction is made bet)een ne(ati*e and positi*e ri(hts.

-/G3TI</ RIGHTS 6egati!e rights are rights to not be interfered with. 6egati!e here refers to being left alone% taking no action against us. 6egati!e rights are rights to do what we want or what we need to do% and nobody should sto us in doing what we need to do as long as we do not interfere with the negati!e rights of others. These are our freedo$ rights% such as5 right to ractice religion we choose right to $o!e about fro$ lace to lace right to rotect oursel!es fro$ danger right to ri!acy right to free s eech right to $ake our own se.ual choices right to seek work to ro!ide for oursel!es and our de endents. right to seek infor$ation right to buy% sell% trade right to offer ser!ices

;,SITI</ RIGHTS "ositi!e rights are rights to hel fro$ others :al$ost always the go!ern$ent; so that we can reasonably sur!i!e% such as5 right to food% clothing% and shelter

 right to safety right to $edical treat$ent right to infor$ation It is i$ ortant to recogni'e that these ositi!e rights do not su ersede our negati!e rights. Go!ern$ent does not auto$atically ro!ide us with food or clothing. These are ro!ided when we cannot get the$ for oursel!es. "ositi!e here refers to getting so$ething added to our li!es% so$ething that we cannot add for oursel!es for whate!er reasons. In a erfect world% we would all be able to always get the things we need for oursel!es. In a erfect world% we would only ha!e negati!e rights. )ut things ha en that re>uire go!ern$ent to ste in and ro!ide for us% thus our ositi!e rights arise. (fter a hurricane% flood% wildfire% earth>uake or tornado% eo le lose their ho$es and $ost of their ro erty. They are gi!en te$ orary shelter% food% etc until they can reco!er fro$ the disaster and build their li!es again. ( change of clothes% a lace to bathe5 we des erately need these in ti$es of disaster and at those ti$es go!ern$ent should ro!ide the$ for us. This is our ositi!e right. 4lothing is one of the few durable goods that are usually considered our ersonal ro erty yet ser!e also as a ositi!e right. "ro erty is otherwise not a ositi!e right. ?or e.a$ le% in the *S( !icti$s of natural disasters are gi!en ?E9( trailers to li!e in when their ho$es are destroyed. The ?E9( trailers ro!ide shelter. The go!ern$ent su lied shelter because this is a basic ositi!e right. )ut once ho$es are rebuilt% they ha!e to call ?E9( to ick u the trailers because the go!ern$ent did not gi!e the$ ro erty% &ust shelter. We do not ha!e a ositi!e right to own a ho$e. "ro erty rights are negati!e rights or ri!ileges. "ro erty rights are not ositi!e rights. We ha!e the negati!e right to get shelter% and ha!e that shelter be as er$anent as we can get. This would be a kind of negati!e right to try to get ro erty. )ut actually getting ro erty is a ri!ilege of your circu$stance of being able to $anage to get ro erty without !iolating rights of anyone else. Si$ ly ut% go!ern$ent does not owe you a ho$e to kee . "ro erty is so$ething we want% but we do not necessarily need to own to sur!i!e. ?or #ocke% ro erty is an i$ ortant negati!e right. )ut by this he $eans% if you work to get ro erty% nobody should &ust decide to take it away fro$ you% not if you are innocent in how you got that ro erty. In other words% if you got ro erty by doing actions that did not !iolate rights of others% then nobody should be able to &ust take your ro erty. /thically speakin(, )e do not ha*e the ri(ht to make a profit.

"rofit is a ri!ilege% not a right. We do not ha!e a negati!e right to not be interfered with so that we can $ake a rofit. We do not ha!e a ositi!e right to hel fro$ the go!ern$ent so that we can $ake a rofit. We ha!e the negati!e right to buy and sell% and% ethically s eaking we $ight go as far as saying we ha!e the negati!e right to break e!en% but not to $a.i$i'e rofit. In $ost countries% eo le ha!e the le(al right to kee rofit. )ut when discussing rights be careful not to confuse ethical rights with legal rights. ( legal right is not an ethical right. )ut just because )e ha*e no ri(ht to make a profit, does not mean if )e seek profit )e are losin( ri(hts. 9any of the things we need to do to $ake rofit are well within our ethical rights. In al$ost all circu$stances we ha!e the right to offer goods for sale% to rice those goods% etc. There is nothing inherently unethical about rofit. "rofit is &ust like a 4hrist$as )onus. You get that bonus in art if you $erit it% but also in art if you are lucky. You do not ha!e a $oral right to a bonus. )ut that does not $ean there is anything wrong with getting a bonus% it &ust $eans it is not $uch rele!ant to ethics of rights. ;lease, just do not mention profit )hen doin( ri(hts analyses. ;rofit is not rele*ant to ri(hts. =o not say that we ha!e no right to $ake a rofit. This is not rele!ant. "rofit is a $oti!ation for buying and selling and offering ser!ices. You ha!e a right to buy% sell% and offer ser!ices as long as when you do% you do not !iolate rights of others. Your $oti!ation for doing business is not rele!ant. I';,RT3-T= ',R/ ,- +ISTI-2TI,- 1/T>//- -/G3TI</ RIGHTS ? ;,SITI</ RIGHTS So we understand that negati!e rights are rights to do what we want or what we need to do. These are fairly clear. The right to ri!acy% right to free s eech% right to rotect oursel!es% right to $ake our own se.ual choices% right to work to ro!ide food clothing 8 shelter for oursel!es and our de endents. Then how do we distinguish these negati!e rights fro$ ositi!e rights@ When our negati!e rights are !ery i$ ortant% they $ay need assistance fro$ go!ern$ents. This was the oint of the social contract theories of Hobbes 8 #ocke. Go!ern$ents hel us by ro!iding our rights when we cannot or they hel us by $aking it easier for all of us to see our rights are $et. (ny ositi!e right also has a negati!e right that $irrors it. The difference between negati!e and ositi!e rights is that for the ositi!e rights go!ern$ents hel us. EA(9"#E5 >e ha*e the ri(ht to information.

This $eans that we ha!e the negati!e right to seek infor$ation we need% and nobody should interfere with our atte$ ts to gather correct infor$ation. )ut as we all know% there are $any eo le who try to distort the facts% and try to $ake it !ery difficult for us to get correct infor$ation. Right to infor$ation is such an i$ ortant right that it often is a ositi!e right too. This $eans that it is the duty of go!ern$ent to ro!ide correct infor$ation to citi'ens% and to unish those who gra!ely !iolate our right to correct infor$ation. 6otice that this right can conflict with our right to free s eech. Is it okay for eo le to lie and distort the truth@ =o we !iolate their right to free s eech when we unish the$@ These are i$ ortant considerations.

RIGHTS /-T3I5 +.TI/S. -, +.T@, -, RIGHT.

*sually hiloso hers e. lain the link between rights and duties in a reci rocating sense. If you ha!e the right to free s eech then you ha!e the =*TY to reci rocate that right to other eo le and let the$ s eak freely to you. )ut the relationshi between rights and duties is actually $ore basic than reci rocation. The best way to see this is to look at rights as a natural gift% and gifts should not be treated like they are nothing. We ha!e all of us gone through the rocesses of getting gifts of ?reedo$ and understand it in this basic sense. We all grew u . (s a child you had $ost of the ositi!e rights5 rights to food% clothing% shelter% freedo$ fro$ har$. )ut your negati!e rights were al$ost nil. You did not ha!e the right to freedo$ of $o!e$ent. E!erywhere you went you had to ha!e adult su er!ision. You had no rights to ha!e se. or s eak your $ind freely. Your ositi!e right to infor$ation was also greatly curtailed. There were &ust so$e things your arents did not want you to know about. )ut along with being a !irtual risoner of your arents and teachers% you had !ery few duties :res onsibilities;. #ack of res onsibility is the s ecial gift of childhood. (s you grew u % you were gi!en rights5 right to drink beer% right to ha!e se.% etc. )ut along with these rights ca$e the res onsibilities. You can drink now% but should be res onsible enough to handle that alcohol. You can ha!e se.% but $ust be res onsible for ha!ing safe se. or ha!e to deal with all the conse>uences of unsafe se.. RIGHTS 1RI-G +.TI/S. ;ositi*e Ri(hts of 2hildren 4hildren are !ery li$ited in their negati!e rights. They are so li$ited because they are not yet able to reasonably and freely choose in $any areas of consent. 4hildren do not ha!e the negati!e right to all infor$ation. They do not ha!e $ost negati!e rights of se.ual freedo$. )*T% children ha!e the $ost ositi!e rights of

all hu$ans. It is our duty to rotect children% to kee the$ safe fro$ se.ual coercion% to ro!ide the$ with health care% education% a safe ho$e% etc. It is not only go!ern$ent that has a duty to ro!ide children with ositi!e rights% it is a duty of arents% relati!es% teachers% and all of us.

Robert -oAick (1%6!"7887&BT)entieth 2entury Ri(hts

Robert 6o'ick is an e.tre$e libertarian. E.tre$e libertarians hold that no one has ositi!e rights. >e only ha*e the basic ne(ati*e ri(ht to freedom from coercion which is the right not to be forced to do things against our will. Only ti$e we can rightfully be forced to do so$ething against our will is when we are forced to sto coercing others. )ut this e.tre$e libertarianis$ fails to see that% gi!en so $uch freedo$ for e!eryone% then Hobbes state of nature would see$ to follow77one erson e.ercising freedo$ often restricts freedo$ of so$eone else. Such conflict of rights are discussed in ter$s of prima facie rights.

;RI'3 :32I/ RIGHTS

In legal discourse% rights are distinguished in ter$s of o!erriding rights and "ri$a ?acie Rights. So$e rights contradict% gi!en certain circu$stances% and when this arises% so$e rights beco$e secondary and are then ob!iated :cancelled;. The rights which are weaker are called "ri$a ?acie Rights. "ri$a $eans first and facie $eans face. "ri$a facie literally $eans first face% as in su erficial% &ust outward a earance. "ri$a facie rights are rights that a ear at first to be i$ ortant until so$e $ore i$ ortant right stands in its way% then the ri$a facie does not see$ so i$ ortant. (lthough "ri$a ?acie Rights are $ostly discussed in legal literature% they are indeed based on the notion of "ri$a ?acie Ethical Rights. 9y negati!e right to whate!er is often% :so$eti$es !ery; likely to interfere with your right. ?or e.a$ le% I ha!e the right to listen to $usic. )ut if I lay $usic loud enough% this can interfere with your right to eace and >uiet. Which right wins out@ We could decide by which right is $ore necessary to our basic needs. =o I need to listen to $usic@ =o I need eace and >uiet@ Well% $ost e!eryone agrees% we need eace and >uiet for well being. 9usic is an e.tra% not a need. )ut $aking this decision is not necessarily so si$ le. )ack ho$e :6ew Orleans area; $usic is considered necessary to life% like breathing. It is difficult to get

eo le to buy into the eace and >uiet line. 6otice that I ha!e switched fro$ talking about ethics as what is right and wrong for e!eryone regardless of what their culture belie!es% to looking at what eo le agree about% and that can !ary. This switch is okay because once we start talking about needs we are talking about ?(4TS% not &ust ethics. If ethics relates to facts then we start looking for facts about needs that we agree are not sub&ecti!e and not &ust cultural. In the case of the right to listen to $usic% weighed against the right to eace and >uiet% we find a need in!ol!ed that is definite5 we need to slee . E!eryone has a right to slee at night. So if you lay $usic at night and disturb slee of your neighbors% you ha!e !iolated their $ore i$ ortant right to slee at night% e!en in #ouisiana% e.ce t during 9ardi Gras% 4hrist$as E!e% and countless town festi!als. =oing ethical rights analysis of cases is often a $atter of weighing conflicting rights% like $usic !. slee . 6egati!e rights al$ost always tru$ ositi!e rights. The hiloso hical conce t that best e. lains why is the difference between doing nothing and taking action. Go!ern$ents% in doing nothing% $ight not co$ letely fulfill their duty to ro!ide ositi!e rights% but in taking action that !iolates negati!e rights go!ern$ents ut the$sel!es in the unethical osition of !iolating rights of innocent eo le. You cannot ro!ide ositi!e rights if it $eans erfor$ing actions that !iolate the rights of innocent eo le. This a lies al$ost uni!ersally in rights theory. E!ery ositi!e right is based on a negati!e right that a erson cannot $eet on their own. It is the negati!e right that BgroundsB the ethical i$ erati!e of ositi!e rights. It is because we ha!e the negati!e right to try to get our own food% clothing% and shelter that we e.tend that right to ositi!e rights% $aking the ethical case that when we cannot get the$% so$eone has to gi!e the$ to us. You ha!e negati!e rights% and only in !ery s ecial circu$stances should ositi!e rights kick in. Your negati!e rights arise as you reach the age of consent5 adulthood that signifies you can $ake logical choices about your own life and your own needs. Would we want go!ern$ent to ro!ide e!erything for us@ 9ost of us would refer to $ake our own choices about how we get basic necessities because we get a sense of fulfill$ent and worth fro$ doing things for oursel!es :e.ercising our negati!e rights; instead of ha!ing go!ern$ent gi!e these to us. ?ree choice is the basis of rights theory. Rational adults should $ake their own choices.

G,</R-'/-T +.TI/S, I--,2/-T ;/,;5/, ? 2,-:5I2TI-G RIGHTS

Go!ern$ents ha!e no rights. Go!ern$ents are not eo le. Go!ern$ent staff are eo le% and as ri!ate citi'ens% off duty% they ha!e rights. )ut as staff of go!ern$ent in their role as go!ern$ent% they ha!e no rights. Go!ern$ents only ha!e duties5 duty to ser!e the eo le they re resent. This role of duty a lies to olice% teachers% 6S(% TS(% elected officials% $onarchs% and a ointed officials% etc. The only right reser!ed e!en while functioning as go!ern$ent staff% is right to free s eech% but e!en free s eech $ay ha!e li$its when you are working for go!ern$ent. Gi!en rights theory% go!ern$ent has C basic duties5 +. rotect negati!e rights C. ro!ide ositi!e rights. The role of go!ern$ent in ter$s of conflicting rights is es ecially i$ ortant to co$ uter ethics and negati!e rights. While it is true that rights often conflict% it is also true that innocent eo le should not ha!e their negati!e rights !iolated% not if they do not !iolate rights of others. This beco$es $ost i$ ortant in issues of ri!acy and go!ern$ent interference. These days it al$ost see$s that go!ern$ents belie!e technology can and should be used in the na$e of right to safety. )ut if you do not !iolate safety your rights do not conflict with rights of others. Go!ern$ents use ri$a facie rights against us% and they do so often in the na$e of an ethics of rights. One $istake students usually $ake is to assu$e that right to safety often conflicts with your rights to ri!acy or free s eech or infor$ation. )ut% if you are innocent% you ha!e no rights in conflict. Yes% go!ern$ent has the duty to ro!ide you with safety% but this ositi!e right to safety cannot be used as an e.cuse for go!ern$ent to !iolate your negati!e rights to ri!acy% not if you are innocent of any !iolation of rights of others. If you are I66O4E6T% you are &ust not a threat to safety. If you are an innocent erson% not going to hurt anyone% go!ern$ent cannot shackle you% lock you u % scan you% at you down% &ust to $ake sure e!eryone is safe. They can only do this to those who threaten safety. Hu$an beings are indi!iduals each with dignity 8 self7worth. We are not cattle being horded onto trucks% we are not bits of straw in a collecti!e haystack that need to be rodded and ins ected in order to weed out the needles in the haystack. If you are not a threat% there is no conflict between your negati!e rights and your safety or the safety of anyone else. In order to !iolate your ri!acy go!ern$ent $ust ha!e good reason to assu$e your guilt. Go!ern$ent needs to ha!e roof that you as an indi!idual are a

threat to safety before they can start treating you like you $ight be a threat to safety by scanning you% reading your $ail% or whate!er. This is rights theory. )ut how then are they to know who is $eaning to cause har$ if they cannot screen us first@ Go!ern$ent does ha!e a roble$ here. The solution is to find non7in!asi!e ways to screen us% etc. Go!ern$ent $ust find so$e other way to ro!ide you with safety% they cannot !iolate the rights of innocent eo le in order to gi!e you safety. (t least they cannot do so in the na$e of an ethics of rights.

RIGHTS (3RG.'/-T Section of ,.T5I-/&

+. =E?I6E RIGHTS5 RIGHTS are a justified claim to a certain kind of treatment from others, to help from others or to be left alone by others. :&ust co y and aste definition; C. State !ery generally% in one sentence% if rights are !iolated D. #ist (## grou s or indi!iduals whose rights are or $ight be in!ol!ed :a sentence; E. Write a aragra h for each grou :or each indi!idual; e. laining how their rights are ossibly in!ol!ed. E. lain the i$ ortance of that right. -. E. lain in a se arate aragra h which rights are !iolated% if any. ,. E. lain in a se arate aragra h which rights conflict% if any do <. If there are conflicting rights% weigh the conflicting rights of the grou s5 which are $ost i$ ortant@