Persons, Rights and the Moral Community
Chapter 1
Use and Abuse of Basic Rights
“Rights are not the whole of moral value, nor is respect for rights the highest of moral virtues. Unsophisticated generosity and compassion may take one good hit higher on the ladder of moral worth than does a well-schooled punctiliousness in nit overstepping the boundaries set by the rights of others. Concern for rights is a necessary cornerstone in the design of a social ethic, but it should not be confused for the complete edifice.”
The Welter of Rights
“Even casual inspection of issues that currently agitate public consciousness reveals that disputes over permissible conduct, just and unjust policies, resound with the language of rights.”
The language of rights has insinuated itself into the habitual manner of policy issues.
The concern for rights starts since before birth (fetus problem). So where do rights actually begin? Where do they end? You die and you still have a right to something (burial, and things in a cemetery).
Most of the disputes about right are really disputes of preference against preference.
“So long as I conceive myself as a genuine rights holder, I can regard myself as entirely free to act in accord with my best lights.”
Are Rights Necessary?
The rights that we have, or that we know exist, come from moral principles that have been held before. For example the rights of the United States Declaration of Independence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, seem natural but are actually part of John Locke’s theory.
There is much disagreance about what rights are important and how they should be handled.
“It follows that much confusion is likely to result from focusing attention on rights claims without simultaneously paying heed to their foundation for moral principles.”
The Need for Rights
“Affirmations for basic rights spring from a commitment to the value of the individual and in turn reflect that commitment into the moral arena.”
“The core of this notion is that each person possesses a kind of sovereignty over his own life and that such sovereignty entails that he be accorded a zone of protected activity within which he is to be free from encroachment by other”
Basic rights probably come from the value of the individual.
Value attaches to the ability of each person to lead their lives, in freedom without the interference of others through which they should be able to develop and pursue their ideals of the good. (pg 11)
In other words, basic rights rests on individualistic foundations.
Joel Feinberg:
“Having rights enable us to `stand up like men`, to look others in the eye, and to feel in some fundamental way the equal of anyone. To think of oneself as the holder of rights is not to be unduly but properly proud, to have that minimal self-respect that is necessary to be worthy of the love and esteem of others.”
Moral theory has to include rights.
“Rights and the doctrine of individualism are intimately associated. Where concerns are perceived to have an important bearing on personal dignity, and where individuals' ability to conduct their own lives in a satisfying manner are at stake, the turn to rights is natural.”
“Rights are not the whole of moral value, nor is respect for rights the highest of moral virtues. Unsophisticated generosity and compassion may take one good hit higher on the ladder of moral worth than does a well-schooled punctiliousness in nit overstepping the boundaries set by the rights of others. Concern for rights is a necessary cornerstone in the design of a social ethic, but it should not be confused for the complete edifice.”
The Welter of Rights
“Even casual inspection of issues that currently agitate public consciousness reveals that disputes over permissible conduct, just and unjust policies, resound with the language of rights.”
The language of rights has insinuated itself into the habitual manner of policy issues.
The concern for rights starts since before birth (fetus problem). So where do rights actually begin? Where do they end? You die and you still have a right to something (burial, and things in a cemetery).
Most of the disputes about right are really disputes of preference against preference.
“So long as I conceive myself as a genuine rights holder, I can regard myself as entirely free to act in accord with my best lights.”
Are Rights Necessary?
The rights that we have, or that we know exist, come from moral principles that have been held before. For example the rights of the United States Declaration of Independence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, seem natural but are actually part of John Locke’s theory.
There is much disagreance about what rights are important and how they should be handled.
“It follows that much confusion is likely to result from focusing attention on rights claims without simultaneously paying heed to their foundation for moral principles.”
The Need for Rights
“Affirmations for basic rights spring from a commitment to the value of the individual and in turn reflect that commitment into the moral arena.”
“The core of this notion is that each person possesses a kind of sovereignty over his own life and that such sovereignty entails that he be accorded a zone of protected activity within which he is to be free from encroachment by other”
Basic rights probably come from the value of the individual.
Value attaches to the ability of each person to lead their lives, in freedom without the interference of others through which they should be able to develop and pursue their ideals of the good. (pg 11)
In other words, basic rights rests on individualistic foundations.
Joel Feinberg:
“Having rights enable us to `stand up like men`, to look others in the eye, and to feel in some fundamental way the equal of anyone. To think of oneself as the holder of rights is not to be unduly but properly proud, to have that minimal self-respect that is necessary to be worthy of the love and esteem of others.”
Moral theory has to include rights.
“Rights and the doctrine of individualism are intimately associated. Where concerns are perceived to have an important bearing on personal dignity, and where individuals' ability to conduct their own lives in a satisfying manner are at stake, the turn to rights is natural.”
Chapter 2
Persons and Projects
“Concern for basic rights is concern for the individualism they express.”We would not recognize rights if it not because we know that we have sovereignty over our lives and can act under our will.
Rights present a problem for some people: they set up barriers for private individuals and for governments, stopping them from achieving their own pleasure. Humans are susceptible to pursue their own interest at the expense of others.
“By recognizing each individual as a bearerof rights, all are afforded some protection against the predations that would otherwise ensue”
What is rule Utilitarianism?
The barriers set by rights defend rule utilitarianism?
Prudential and Moral Reasons
“The criticisms recounted above rest on the assumption that there is some general standard of moral value in terms of which actions are to be tested, and that one action is to be preferred to an alternative if it producesmore of that which the standard of value endorse.”
One of these theories: utilitarianism.
“One acts in order to attain some end that one values.” ”It may be a remote consequence whose fruit will not be enjoyed for many years.”
The action may be chosen for two reasons: for doing that very thing, or for the consequences that will come from it. No matter which one of the two it is, action is purposive.
Even though we want to secure ends, not all ends are equally valued. There are some that rank higher and some lower. If this wasn't so, we wouldn't be faced with having to make a decision. “Almost always, though, when a person pursues one good, it is at the expense of others that could have been secured in its place.”
Opportunity cost: next most highly valued use forgone.
“The rational chooser is one who, not being able to secure everything that he values, selects his actions in a way that gives precedence to more highly valued goals over those held in lesser regard,”
Rational calculation involves satisfaction at a time and satisfaction over time.
“The skill involved in juggling possibilities for action in the light of their opportunity costs and probabilities of future goods and ills is the virtue of prudence.”
Prudence: maximization of expected value over time. “Prudence concerns itself with the good for one person, but morality involves the good of many persons.”
Impersonal Standard of Value: a standard that ranges over persons and their ends, which is not value for some particular person, but for various persons ends. A standard that is equally binding on all individuals.
But some moral theorists disagree as to which standard of value ought to be accepted. There are some theorists that say that to favor ourself is impermissible partiality; that we shouldn't give extra weight to our own preferences. This is called Foil.
Projects
All that has been stated before is to show the place of reason in morality.
Difference among the kinds of ends that motivate person’s actions:
Project pursuit is at odds with the foil (with that we shouldn't give weight to our own preferences) “It will be recalled hat the Foil puts forth an account of moral rationality such that an agent is bidden to choose between conflicting ends on the basis of their conformity with an acknowledged impersonal standard of value. From the point of view of this standard, it is immaterial whether one, all, or none of the ends that conflict are those of the agent himself.”
Project pursuit is the other side of the Foil, the opposing side. Instead of having an Impersonal Standard of Value, through project pursuit we will be able to reach our own Standard of value, attached to what we most cherish.
Project pursuit requires to be committed in the long term, to order your activities according to your project. But if you only have a partial attachment to these, these are inconceivable.
"An individual's projects provides him with a personal -an intimately personal- standardof value to choose his actions by.”
"The Foil offers a theory of rationality for making interpersonal trade-offs.”
It is rational to trade off something that scores lower in the impersonal standard of value than one that is higher.
“They truly involve a serious level of commitment,and one who is unable or unwilling to commit himself to anything is not a pursuerof project.”
Foil: implies that the moral person is tentative in regards to his personal goals, his plans and what he would like to be. This is because all of this might conflict at some point with the maximization requirement, and if it foes conflict, he has to leave his goals, etc. in order to do those that are highest in the impersonal standard.
Projects and The Coherence of Persons
Another factor that bears on the identity of the individual: attachment to ends that shape a persons life. If we didn't have ends we wouldn't have identity as the selfsame purposive being.
“One component of a person'sidentity over time is constituted by his commitment to projects.”
The Road to Rights
“If the Foil in all its manifestations has been demonstrated to be inadequate, then an adequate ethic must find a place for personal as well as impersonal considerations.”
“Beings who are holders of rights are not properly subject to unlimited trade-offs of their own ends for the sake of other persons' ends. Rights holders are free within the boundaries established by their basic rights to direct their own lives according to their own lights. Individualism is deserving of protection even though individualism can be inconvenient. Respect for basic rights affords that protection.”
“Concern for basic rights is concern for the individualism they express.”We would not recognize rights if it not because we know that we have sovereignty over our lives and can act under our will.
Rights present a problem for some people: they set up barriers for private individuals and for governments, stopping them from achieving their own pleasure. Humans are susceptible to pursue their own interest at the expense of others.
“By recognizing each individual as a bearerof rights, all are afforded some protection against the predations that would otherwise ensue”
What is rule Utilitarianism?
The barriers set by rights defend rule utilitarianism?
Prudential and Moral Reasons
“The criticisms recounted above rest on the assumption that there is some general standard of moral value in terms of which actions are to be tested, and that one action is to be preferred to an alternative if it producesmore of that which the standard of value endorse.”
One of these theories: utilitarianism.
“One acts in order to attain some end that one values.” ”It may be a remote consequence whose fruit will not be enjoyed for many years.”
The action may be chosen for two reasons: for doing that very thing, or for the consequences that will come from it. No matter which one of the two it is, action is purposive.
Even though we want to secure ends, not all ends are equally valued. There are some that rank higher and some lower. If this wasn't so, we wouldn't be faced with having to make a decision. “Almost always, though, when a person pursues one good, it is at the expense of others that could have been secured in its place.”
Opportunity cost: next most highly valued use forgone.
“The rational chooser is one who, not being able to secure everything that he values, selects his actions in a way that gives precedence to more highly valued goals over those held in lesser regard,”
Rational calculation involves satisfaction at a time and satisfaction over time.
“The skill involved in juggling possibilities for action in the light of their opportunity costs and probabilities of future goods and ills is the virtue of prudence.”
Prudence: maximization of expected value over time. “Prudence concerns itself with the good for one person, but morality involves the good of many persons.”
Impersonal Standard of Value: a standard that ranges over persons and their ends, which is not value for some particular person, but for various persons ends. A standard that is equally binding on all individuals.
But some moral theorists disagree as to which standard of value ought to be accepted. There are some theorists that say that to favor ourself is impermissible partiality; that we shouldn't give extra weight to our own preferences. This is called Foil.
Projects
All that has been stated before is to show the place of reason in morality.
Difference among the kinds of ends that motivate person’s actions:
- Intensity of the desire for their realization.
- In respect of their persistence and centrality within the life of an individual (projects: something that continues throughout a life and plays a central role in the endeavors of the individual, giving life stability and structure.) “Projects explain more than an action; they help to explain a life.”
Project pursuit is at odds with the foil (with that we shouldn't give weight to our own preferences) “It will be recalled hat the Foil puts forth an account of moral rationality such that an agent is bidden to choose between conflicting ends on the basis of their conformity with an acknowledged impersonal standard of value. From the point of view of this standard, it is immaterial whether one, all, or none of the ends that conflict are those of the agent himself.”
Project pursuit is the other side of the Foil, the opposing side. Instead of having an Impersonal Standard of Value, through project pursuit we will be able to reach our own Standard of value, attached to what we most cherish.
Project pursuit requires to be committed in the long term, to order your activities according to your project. But if you only have a partial attachment to these, these are inconceivable.
"An individual's projects provides him with a personal -an intimately personal- standardof value to choose his actions by.”
"The Foil offers a theory of rationality for making interpersonal trade-offs.”
It is rational to trade off something that scores lower in the impersonal standard of value than one that is higher.
“They truly involve a serious level of commitment,and one who is unable or unwilling to commit himself to anything is not a pursuerof project.”
Foil: implies that the moral person is tentative in regards to his personal goals, his plans and what he would like to be. This is because all of this might conflict at some point with the maximization requirement, and if it foes conflict, he has to leave his goals, etc. in order to do those that are highest in the impersonal standard.
Projects and The Coherence of Persons
Another factor that bears on the identity of the individual: attachment to ends that shape a persons life. If we didn't have ends we wouldn't have identity as the selfsame purposive being.
“One component of a person'sidentity over time is constituted by his commitment to projects.”
- Identity as a purposive project pursuer is acquired; not innate.
- Identity in that sense involves stages. One should compare persons according to the degree of identity that their lives manifest.
The Road to Rights
“If the Foil in all its manifestations has been demonstrated to be inadequate, then an adequate ethic must find a place for personal as well as impersonal considerations.”
“Beings who are holders of rights are not properly subject to unlimited trade-offs of their own ends for the sake of other persons' ends. Rights holders are free within the boundaries established by their basic rights to direct their own lives according to their own lights. Individualism is deserving of protection even though individualism can be inconvenient. Respect for basic rights affords that protection.”
Chapter 3
Projects and the Nature of Ethics
“The standing of human beings a project pursuers is a fact so portentous that any account of morality that explicitly or implicitly denies that project pursuers have reason to be partial to their own abiding commitments is thereby disqualified as an adequate moral theory for beings like us.”
Some say that the pursuit of projects makes constructive theorizing impossible. Bases:
“It is not being claimed that all beings who are rights holders or who merit some degree of moral attention are so n virtue of being project pursuers.”
“A right is a claim with which others must comply; it is a maximally weighty moral consideration, and there cannot be degrees of maximal wrightiness. While some right holders can posses more rights than others, there is no such thing as being more of a rights holder.”There are no degrees of strictness in which the rights are acquired.
“One who pursues projects lives a life structured by abiding commitments that determine what will count as a motivation towards action for that person, but no particular motivational structure is presupposed. “
projects: motivated dispositions that project themselves temporally through various stages of a life and render it one connected life rather than a jumble of discrete episodes.
Those who pursue projects don't need to know beforehand which values to devote his efforts to.
“A persons commitments may be unarticulated and not at all the product of conscious deliberation culminating in a moment of supreme decision.” You can be committed to a certain end and not know that you are committed to it.
Autonomous acting: when one decides on an action through rational consideration AND when one is unconstrained by external influences
According to John Rawl ones autonomy is guarded from the encroachments of others and ones own preconceptions.
But being a project pursuer is not the same as being fully autonomous. Sometimes your projects could be rationally chosen, but other times they could be grounded on something else or someone else, and this you take to believe that it is your project and your idea. So project pursuit can be reflective or non reflective.
“In all societies persons regularly attach themselves though their actions to the welfare of parents or children or clan or nation, display fealty to their gods, view the contours of the land that is their with special affection, show allegiance to virtues and responsibilities of a craft or tradition.” These are also recognized as projects, because they are motivated activity that form a structure of a scrutable life.
The Bounds of Conflict
Individuals aims can come into conflict. This is where the ethical inquiry takes its starting point.
Philosophical normative ethics: the search for rationally justifiable standards for the resolution of interpersonal conflict.
Aristotle sees justice as a virtue of individuals, specifically the avoidance of grasping too much. Just springs from the desire to be just.
In modern world, it is the other way around: virtues are the traits that lead one to discharge one duties in acceptable fashion.
“The purpose of this brief excursion into ancient philosophy is to demonstrate a striking resemblance between an ethic of activity in accord with virtue during a whole human life and an ethic of project pursuit.”
Projects are like the Aristotelian virtues: they give motivational structure to a life and provide an individual standard of value for practical judgment.
“Value is prior to commitments, and one does well or ill insofar as ones commitments accurately exemplify or fail to exemplify that value.” But lomasky says that there is one value that is posterior to choice, the personal value.
¿? Liberal conception
the individual project pursuer value comes from his ability to create value through his personal commitments.
Rights only become a unit of philosophy when liberalism springs in the 17th and 18th century.
But liberalism and Aristotelian reject the conception of ethics as a search for interpersonal decision procedures. They both take as primary the individuals exercise of practical reason to realize value.
“The standing of human beings a project pursuers is a fact so portentous that any account of morality that explicitly or implicitly denies that project pursuers have reason to be partial to their own abiding commitments is thereby disqualified as an adequate moral theory for beings like us.”
Some say that the pursuit of projects makes constructive theorizing impossible. Bases:
- Children and old people are not project pursuers but have moral weight.
- Ethics: the investigation of rationally justifiable bases for resolving conflicts among persons with divergent aims who share a common world. If there is to be morality, then there has to be a standard (reason or moral) in order to resolve conflict. “morality breaks down into a sea of competing claims.”
“It is not being claimed that all beings who are rights holders or who merit some degree of moral attention are so n virtue of being project pursuers.”
- Univalent theories: if a theory ground all attributions of moral status to being on their possession of one property. Ex: only project pursuers are right holders.
- Multivalent: if a theory has many ways by which a being can have a moral status. Ex: people who pursue projects have rights but also others who don't.
“A right is a claim with which others must comply; it is a maximally weighty moral consideration, and there cannot be degrees of maximal wrightiness. While some right holders can posses more rights than others, there is no such thing as being more of a rights holder.”There are no degrees of strictness in which the rights are acquired.
“One who pursues projects lives a life structured by abiding commitments that determine what will count as a motivation towards action for that person, but no particular motivational structure is presupposed. “
projects: motivated dispositions that project themselves temporally through various stages of a life and render it one connected life rather than a jumble of discrete episodes.
Those who pursue projects don't need to know beforehand which values to devote his efforts to.
“A persons commitments may be unarticulated and not at all the product of conscious deliberation culminating in a moment of supreme decision.” You can be committed to a certain end and not know that you are committed to it.
Autonomous acting: when one decides on an action through rational consideration AND when one is unconstrained by external influences
According to John Rawl ones autonomy is guarded from the encroachments of others and ones own preconceptions.
But being a project pursuer is not the same as being fully autonomous. Sometimes your projects could be rationally chosen, but other times they could be grounded on something else or someone else, and this you take to believe that it is your project and your idea. So project pursuit can be reflective or non reflective.
“In all societies persons regularly attach themselves though their actions to the welfare of parents or children or clan or nation, display fealty to their gods, view the contours of the land that is their with special affection, show allegiance to virtues and responsibilities of a craft or tradition.” These are also recognized as projects, because they are motivated activity that form a structure of a scrutable life.
The Bounds of Conflict
Individuals aims can come into conflict. This is where the ethical inquiry takes its starting point.
Philosophical normative ethics: the search for rationally justifiable standards for the resolution of interpersonal conflict.
Aristotle sees justice as a virtue of individuals, specifically the avoidance of grasping too much. Just springs from the desire to be just.
In modern world, it is the other way around: virtues are the traits that lead one to discharge one duties in acceptable fashion.
“The purpose of this brief excursion into ancient philosophy is to demonstrate a striking resemblance between an ethic of activity in accord with virtue during a whole human life and an ethic of project pursuit.”
Projects are like the Aristotelian virtues: they give motivational structure to a life and provide an individual standard of value for practical judgment.
“Value is prior to commitments, and one does well or ill insofar as ones commitments accurately exemplify or fail to exemplify that value.” But lomasky says that there is one value that is posterior to choice, the personal value.
¿? Liberal conception
the individual project pursuer value comes from his ability to create value through his personal commitments.
Rights only become a unit of philosophy when liberalism springs in the 17th and 18th century.
But liberalism and Aristotelian reject the conception of ethics as a search for interpersonal decision procedures. They both take as primary the individuals exercise of practical reason to realize value.