THE RIGHTS APPROACH Jill Stiemsma M, 8:30 Ethical Theories Presentation April 21, 2008

IMMANUEL KANT

THEORY OF RIGHT ACTION “Each human has dignity and is worthy of respect. Human dignity gives rise to fundamental moral rights.”

TWO BASIC RIGHTS Right to protection of human freedoms – each of us, therefore, has an obligation not to interfere with others’ rights (e.g., the right to free speech)

TWO BASIC RIGHTS Right to a minimal level of well-being (e.g., the right to sufficient calories) Imposes on others the duty to sustain that level of well-being

As such, each of us has protections (rights) and each of us has a commensurate responsibility to others. It’s not just about “me”. Consider drinking and driving.

BASIC PRINCIPLE OF MORAL ACTION: CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE “ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO THAT MAXIM WHEREBY YOU CAN AT THE SAME TIME WILL THAT IT BECOME A UNIVERSAL LAW.”

WHAT IN THE WORLD DOES THAT MEAN??? The rule you propose for yourself when deciding what to do must be consistent with the rule that everyone else should follow.

FOR EXAMPLE… Should I lie to get myself out of an embarrassing situation? Kant: No. Because if others therefore could also lie in the same situation, the general expectation for truthfulness could never be maintained.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE WE CANNOT MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR OURSELVES… WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER, SO TO SPEAK

PERFORM TWO TESTS 1. Generalize the principle to others: “If someone else acted this way in this situation, would it be all right?” Perform Test 2 only if Test 1 makes sense. 2. Ask: “Would you choose to live in a world where everyone acted this way?” If not, do not act on the maxim.

USING TEST 1: Maxim: I may make a false promise… Generalized: Anyone may make a false promise… This is self-contradictory because: If anyone may make a … Result: I may not act on that maxim. The maxim fails Test One.

EXAMPLE TWO USING TESTS ONE AND TWO Maxim: I may refuse to help another… Generalized: Anyone may refuse to help… Can it be conceived? Yes. Could you will it to be universal law? No Result: You cannot act on the "Bad Samaritan" maxim.

ONE MORE EXAMPLE “I don’t have time to write my own paper. I will copy from a friend who wrote on this topic last semester.”

TEST 1 Generalize the principle to others: “If someone else acted this way in this situation, would it be all right?” Perform Test 2 ONLY if Test 1 makes sense. Let’s assume it does.

TEST 2 ASK: “Would you choose to live in a world where everyone acted this way?” If not, do not act on the maxim.

In short, if you wouldn’t want to live in a world where everyone acted that way,the action would be deemed neither “moral” nor ”ethical”

GOOD WILL According to Kant, only one thing is inherently good, and that is good will.

One employs good will ONLY if s/he acts with RESPECT for MORAL LAW. That is, a “good action” is not the same thing as a morally right action. Even if one does the morally right thing, s/he does not deserve credit unless s/he acts from good will (heart).

IN SHORT, ONE’S ACTION IS ONLY GOOD IF IT IS GOOD “WITHOUT QUALIFICATION”. MORAL WORTH DEPENDS ON OUR MOTIVATION.

We Differ from Animals… Because we can act rationally Because we can make moral choices Because we can treat people like ends vs. means Because we can follow rules, reach conclusions, generalize and make free choices

IN SHORT, ONE’S ACTION IS ONLY GOOD IF IT IS GOOD “WITHOUT QUALIFICATION”. MORAL WORTH DEPENDS ON OUR MOTIVATION.

THE CRITICISMS of KANTIAN THEORY

Criticisms Kant’s approach gives little aid for complex situations

FOR EXAMPLE… Let’s say your work group consists of two productive students and two slackers. Your grade depends upon submitting a well reasoned, well edited project which will not happen unless you pick up the slack. Let’s apply Test 1 and Test 2.

WHAT TO DO… Test 1: Generalize to others – “If someone else acted this way in this situation, would it be all right?” “If others picked up the slack for lazy students, would that be all right?”

WHAT TO DO… Test 2: ASK “Would you choose to live in a world where everyone acted this way?”

CAN TESTS 1 AND 2 TRULY ADDRESS MORE COMPLICATED DILEMMAS?

CRITICISMS Kant dismisses emotions such as pity and compassion as irrelevant to morality How does one separate such emotions from morality? How does one separate such emotions from morality? Is there anything wrong with compassion and pity? Is there anything wrong with compassion and pity?

CRITICISM Kant’s approach doesn’t take the consequences of actions seriously enough What if a well-intentioned babysitter dries your cat in the microwave: Would you say, “That’s okay; you meant well”?

ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR John Rawls: “Justice as Fairness”: Focuses on the structure of society

Is there a way to organize society to avoid envy and resentment, alienation and exploitation? Can society be set up around fair principles of cooperation that citizens would accept?

RAWLS Each person should have equal right to the most extensive system of equal basic liberties Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that it benefits both parties fairly and equally (e.g., New Zealand school funding)

Once society has been set up around a fair set of rules, then people should have the chance to freely “play the game”: Get jobs, get educations, earn income, establish businesses, etc. -- and succeed or fail on their own terms.

ADVANTAGES Protects from exploitation Prohibits favoritism Justifies “right action” Promotes happiness Prevents harm

APPLICATION OF RIGHTS THEORY GLOBAL WARMING

RIGHT TO PROTECTION OF HUMAN FREEDOMS Which human rights are threatened by global warming? Access to… Adequate food Reasonable weather Clean water Freedom from disease

EXTREME WEATHER Droughts, floods, other extreme weather = Catastrophic loss of life

INTERRUPTION OF FOOD PRODUCTION

INCREASING UNSANITARY CONDITIONS Those with the fewest resources can expect the greatest crises

Remember: From a Rights Approach, we should all expect a minimal level of well- being. Hence, this approach would suggest we should alter behavior NOW to preserve future right to survival.

In fact, we have a DUTY to protect the well-being of future generations. We have an obligation NOT to interfere with their rights.

QUESTIONS 1. How could you see yourself using the Rights Approach in your own life? 2. How useful are Kant’s “tests”? 3. Should “rights” be the primary consideration when making ethical decisions? Why/why not?

The End Remember: Kant loves you