POLI_2P92_D3_S1_2022_04_04_Lecture

.docx

School

Brock University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2P92

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by GeneralFreedomAnteater2784

POLI-2P92 LEC 15 Apr 04, 2022 Origin of the Idea of Rights  Kinds of legal “rights”: pre-modern (i.e. roman)  Modern idea of “natural rights”: with Hobbes, Locke & others  Embedded in the famous Declaration statement: “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness The Idea of rights & it context  Previous discussion have raised questions about resolving disputes among rights. o Ex: libertarian (Nozick) vs egalitarian (Rawls) conceptions of Justice are both based on individual rights but weighted differently  Recent thinkers (i.e.. Elizabeth Wolgast) have raised concerns that “claim rights” and “right language” is not adequate to deal with certain relationships or questions o Ex: sick patient; the reason “murder” is wrong; rights and responsibilities  Some argue that rights disputes must be resolved by looking to a common standard of good/justice that does not depend upon particular legislations or even written constitution but is above them (can be used to judge them)  Ancient philosophers looked to “nature” for this standard o The “natural” has been associated with “objective’, “universal”, “absolute”, truths. o Many philosophers refer to “natural law” as a kind of foundation for rights.  However, many modern thinkers argue that such a standard can only be created by us (even by each one of us). This approached associated with: o Subjectivism : all truth is determined by each particular person’s perspective o Individualism: the individual is the sole moral and political basis for right and law o Positivism: Justice is determined by particular statements / laws in particular places and exists only therein

o Relativism: Ideas of right and justice are always dependent on place and time  Some argue that a recognition of “individual rights” or “human rights” is sufficient to allow for a practical and workable, modern conception of justice…  Rooted in nature as well? o Hobbes’s & Locke’s account of “natural” rights as the fundamental moral facts of human existence rather than as subject to prior duties or responsibilities? Alasdair McIntyre & Michael Sandel The limits of Rights  Alasdair Mclntyre: After Virtue (1981)  Michael Sandel: Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982) and several other books: the latest is …. The Tyranny of Merit… what has become of the common good (2020)  Debates about “moral issues” often lead to the “who is judge” refrain oof moral relativism o I.e.. Re: pornography: should we favour tolerance / freedom over community standard?  If all is relative, then why is tolerance and freedom better than any other view? Is there a philosophic framework that can uphold/defend a preference for tolerance and freedom?  The dominant account today: rights – based theories (individuals endowed with inalienable rights; equal in dignity; rooted in Kantian philosophy)  Sandel ask if  The “neutral framework” claimed by liberal rights theorists like Rawls is still a value. As we mentioned above, “liberals” disagree about the extent and primacy of certain rights (Rawls vs. Nozick)  We can and should ask whether this rights-based account of atomistic individuals, competitors, and self-interested contract makers ( “unencumbered selves”) is an adequate vision of human beings and what is truly good for us.  It is indeed a strange conception to think of ourselves as abstract choosers of ends. Is it not rather more accurate to say that each of us is born with attachment and in a community with existing goals?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version