Rights and Justice Based on Kernohan, A. (2012). Environmental ethics: An interactive introduction. Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press, Chapters 7 & 8. Prepared by D. G. Ross, Auburn University. Images copyright D. G. Ross, unless otherwise noted.

“I like heat, and I like food. More heat means more food.” D. G. Ross, Auburn University Spokesperson at a Young Conservatives of Texas “Global Warming Beach Party” explaining why he thinks we don’t need to worry about global warming (Taken and used with permission. Personal communication, August 29, 2007).

Ethical situations generally involve (1) a moral agent, (2) an action or series of actions, (3) consequences, and (4) a recipient of the consequences. 1.Moral Agent: Responsible for action (the doer, or the actor, to which praise or blame is typically assigned) 2.Action: Something that occurs as a results of the moral agent’s decisionmaking process 3.Consequences: Result from action 4.Recipient: Receives the consequences of the moral agent’s action(s) Agent Action Recipient OW! Consequence D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Three overarching ethical theories directly relate to the four primary elements of an ethical situation: Virtue Ethics: Relate to the moral agent’s character Deontological Ethics: Relate to the agent’s duties and obligations in any given situation Consequentialist Ethics: Are concerned with the outcome of an agent’s choice of action and what that means for (the) recipient(s) Virtue of? Obligation to? Consequences of? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

A Right is a “morally justified claim” (Kernohan p. 85) on another. Rights-based ethics fall under the category of deontological ethics—they are concerned with a moral agent’s duties and obligations. When considering rights-based ethics, remember that an action is unethical if it does not respect the rights of those involved, even if the total aggregate utility for all concerned is increased… D. G. Ross, Auburn University Agent Total Utility Had rights violated. Not Ethical

… A system of rights, however, can be justified through utilitarianism because it produces the greatest utility to rights- holders. D. G. Ross, Auburn University Agent Respect for rights increases utility. ? ? ?

A deontological approach to ethics means that a moral agent must act to uphold the moral principles related to an action (or actively-considered inaction). This is duty-driven ethical action. D. G. Ross, Auburn University I have a right to own personal property. Though I wish to possess your gorgeous book, I will not steal it, because to do so would be immoral and I have a duty to uphold our rights.

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) articulated his model of deontological ethics with the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Summarized by Paul Dombrowski (2000), the Imperative states that we should: “Act in such a way that, if you had your way, the principle guiding your actions would become a universally binding law that everyone must act in accordance with (in relation to you), applying to everyone, everywhere, and always, without exception” (2000, p. 49). D. G. Ross, Auburn University Dombrowski, P. (2000). Ethics in Technical Communication. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

So, to put the two together, rights-based ethics asks us to act in such a way that our actions respect the rights of morally-considerable recipients, and to do so with the understanding that our actions should apply to everyone, everywhere, and always, without exception, given similar circumstances. D. G. Ross, Auburn University I have a right to own personal property. If I had that book, I would not want it stolen either. No one should steal personal property.

With relation to rights, we must consider correlative duties, as well as negative and positive rights. A correlative duty means that if person X has a right that person Y do or not do something, then Person Y owes a correlative duty to person X to do or not do that thing. D. G. Ross, Auburn University I have a right to own personal property. I will not steal your book. XY

Negative rights impose a duty to not interfere with the rights-holder. Positive rights impose a duty to assist the rights-bearer. D. G. Ross, Auburn University I have a right to own personal property, and I have the right to read my book where I please, but it looks like I’m about to step in a hole and break my leg. I will not steal your book, and I will not infringe on your right to freedom from interference, as long as you don’t try to come into my home to read your book. Also, LOOK OUT! XY

Rights are limited. Many rights are said to end where another’s rights begin. D. G. Ross, Auburn University I have the right to read my book where I please, and I like it here. I have the right to read my book where I please, and I would like to be RIGHT THERE.

Rights can be assigned. Under Will Theory we have the will to make promises which assign others rights. A limited rights-holder can choose not to claim or enforce this right. D. G. Ross, Auburn University I promise I will give you this book when I am done with it. Thanks, X! Right to bookLimited rights-holder

Some rights are inalienable (incapable of being surrendered). Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for example, are inalienable. Inalienable rights may, however, be forfeited by choice—right to liberty, for example, can be forfeited through the willing commission of a crime. D. G. Ross, Auburn University HEY!!!! Ha HA!

Under Interest Theory, rights are assigned based on relevant, realistic, and important interests. Subjective Interests can be “weighed.” Objective Interests (non- mental) relate to the inherently valuable. D. G. Ross, Auburn University I am interested in living a healthy life. I am interested in a bowl of Spaghetti-O’s! Both X and deserve the freedom to preserve their own happiness.

Any consideration of rights necessarily involves discussion of justice. Justice = moral equality, but moral equals need not be treated equally. Proof of expertise, for example, or certain skillsets, equate to different treatments, as do the consequences of violating laws/systems of rights. D. G. Ross, Auburn University I got the job because I had a better skillset and more qualifications.

Justice demands that we do not consider morally arbitrary features in our considerations of what is just. Morally arbitrary features include (among others): Race Class Age Religion Sexual orientation Economic class Non-arbitrary differences (recognition of need for special treatment) include: Family dynamics Disability Violation of contracts Meritorious conduct Some sex-based accommodations: leave from work, special washrooms, etc. These (among others) are increasingly controversial. D. G. Ross, Auburn University

There are two main types of justice. Retributive Justice Corrective Considers fit of punishment to crime Compensatory Justice Involves forms of payback to victims D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Last, there are, of course, different models of rights and justice: Under a libertarian theory of justice, an individual has the right to the products of their labor and anything gained through the exchange of those products. Indirect Utilitarianism (setting standards for rightness) suggests that particular patterns of rights are justified because these patterns produce the greatest utility for everyone. We should consider each person’s interests equally. Under this theory, some interests require more resources to bring about utility than others. A Social Contract Theory of Justice says we are all equated the same rights. We can choose, however, to enter into contracts which abrogate certain rights. Therefore, we are expected to enter into contracts which maximize our utility…or, put another way, reasonable actors maximize their utility via social contracts. Critics argue that this model suggests that only unreasonable people put themselves in situations which minimize utility (slavery, poverty, etc.). D. G. Ross, Auburn University