1. Lecture 04: A Brief Summary

2. For Kant, animals and inanimate objects do not exist for any meaningful purposes of their own. As such, they are not ‘ends in themselves’ and therefore do not have any intrinsic value (or moral status).

3. In Kant’s view, only humans exist for purposes of their own
In Kant’s view, only humans exist for purposes of their own. Thus, only humans can be regarded as ends in themselves and have dignity (the highest intrinsic value or full moral status).

4. A contemporary moral philosopher, Mary Anne Warren, suggests that moral agents are supposed to care about or show concern for other beings by taking into consideration their needs, interests and welfare when making moral judgments and decisions.

5. As moral agents, we have to think about how far we should extend our moral concern to other beings and what duties we have towards them. To do so, we need to determine the moral status of these beings.

6. For Warren, moral status comes in degrees
For Warren, moral status comes in degrees. To determine the moral status of a being, we have to consider the morally relevant properties it possesses (life, sentience, emotion, etc). The more of these properties a being possesses, the higher its moral status.

7. Some beings, such as stones, have no moral status
Some beings, such as stones, have no moral status. Some beings, such as normal adult humans, have full moral status. The moral status of all other beings is somewhere between the poles of full and none, according to Warren.

8. Rights are relational. They specify the legal or moral duties that we have towards each other. Thus, it can be said that one person’s right is another person’s duty. For example, we have a duty not to kill people because everyone has a right to life.

9. ‘Legal rights’ are rights protected by the law (or legal system) of a particular country. ‘Moral rights’, on the other hand, are ‘deontological’ in the sense that they are grounded on accepted moral principles, values and beliefs.

10. The ‘choice theory of rights’ (also known as the ‘will theory of rights’) asserts that the purpose of rights is to allow rights-holders to exercise control over other people’s actions. It is assumed that rights-holders must be capable of making choices on whether and how to exercise their rights.

11. The ‘interest theory of rights’, in contrast, asserts that the primary purpose of rights is to protect interests. Theoretically speaking, anyone who has important interests that require protection can qualify as a rights-holder, whether or not they are capable of making choices.

12. A ‘positive right’ is a right to a good or a service
A ‘positive right’ is a right to a good or a service. A ‘negative right’, on the other hand, is a right against harm or interference, or a right to liberty.

13. If you have a positive right, someone has a duty to do something for you or give something to you. If you have a negative right, someone has a duty not to do certain things to you (e.g. not to harm you or interfere with what you are doing).

14. According to Mill’s ‘harm principle’, the only justification for the use of coercive power (e.g. the law and the police) to restrict individual freedom is to prevent people from causing harm to others.

15. ‘Only those acts or practices that cause (or likely to cause) harm to non-consenting others should be regulated, prohibited or punished’ is a utility-maximizing rule that government, lawmakers, and law enforcement should follow for the common good of society.

16. Mill opposes ‘paternalism’ i. e
Mill opposes ‘paternalism’ i.e. the view that government should ‘protect people from themselves’ and regulate citizens’ private behavior in the same way parents regulate the conduct of their children.

17. The primary purpose of the law, according to Mill, is to protect individual freedom and to prevent non-consensual harm. The law should not be used as an instrument to enforce particular moral or religious beliefs.

18. The harm principle can be used to determine what is legal (what we have freedom to do) and what is illegal (what we do not have freedom to do). But it cannot be seen as a guide to moral judgment because what is legal is not necessarily moral.