Lecture 7 Objectives: After learning this material you will be able to:
1. Present the basic arguments concerning deontology, the ethics of duty.
2. Understand Immanuel Kant’s ethical philosophy, especially the categorical
imperative.
3. Discuss the nature of having a good will and proper self-esteem.
4. Understand the issues concerned with the theory of rights ethics.
5. Reflect on the principles of liberty (negative) rights and welfare (positive)
rights.
6. Compare and contrast rights and duties.
Welcome back! The last lecture presented some of the ideas that are leading us
past relativism and toward universalism. We studied two forms of universal ethics
known as ethical egoism and utilitarianism. In the process we explored ideas
concerned with laissez-faire capitalism and how the moral community is
influenced by these two different theories concerning the nature of what is good.
In this lecture we will continue to explore some of the ideas that imply that
morality and ethics are based on universal principles. Specifically we will study
deontology (the ethics of duty) and rights ethics to help us understand how these
theories influence our understanding of what is good.
Deontology and Duty
Utilitarianism asks us to look at the consequences of our actions. Will our actions
bring about a greater good for the greater number of people? Depending on how
we answer this we can say that the end sometimes justifies the means. But there
is another form of ethics, deontology, which says that the end never justifies the
means. Instead we must always do what is right regardless of the consequences.
“Deontology is one of the most popular approaches in ethics. Deontological
theories regard duty as the basis of morality. The word deontology comes from
the Greek word deon, meaning ‘duty’ or ‘that which is obligatory.’ Moral duties
are not the same as legal duties or cultural norms. Moral duties are transcultural
and universally binding. If a cultural norm or law conflicts with a moral duty, then
the moral duty should take precedence over the legal duty” (Judith A. Boss,
Ethics For Life: A Text With Readings, Fourth Edition, [New York, New York:
McGraw Hill, 2008] p. 311. Hereafter referred to as Boss.)
Many religious teachings about what is good stress this aspect of morality. We
need to do the right thing and let the consequences take care of themselves.
Hinduism in particular stresses that we cannot control outcomes. We can only
control our own intentions and behaviors. “For deontologists, the moral law is an
end in itself. Moral duty requires the recognition of and submission to moral laws
or rules” (Boss, p. 311.) Therefore, Hindus teach we should control what we can
and leave the rest to the divine.
The real issue for deontologists is to determine whether duties are absolute or
not. “An absolute duty is one that is always morally binding regardless of the
1
circumstances. There are no exceptions. For example, Kant regarded the duty
not to lie as an absolute duty. A prima facie duty, on the other hand, is morally
binding unless it conflicts with a more pressing moral duty” (Boss, p. 312.) Kant
said duties were absolute, but most philosophers think that duties are more
complicated than that. We have to consider our duties, but we also have to be
mindful of the greater good.
Duties can be classified in two ways. “Duties can also be positive or negative. A
positive duty entails actively doing something, such as extending a helping hand
or returning a favor. A negative duty, on the other hand, requires us to restrain
ourselves from doing something” (Boss, p. 312.) Christians sometimes talk about
sins of commission and sins of omission. They are making a similar distinction.
But where do duties come from? Religious people tend to think that they are
revealed from God in laws and commandments. Natural law philosophers tend to
see duties as emerging from reason, that is, our duties are self-evident. Other
people think our duties spring from our intuition or our feelings. There seems to
be no consensus yet on the origin of duties even as philosophers accept the
“fact” that we have both positive and negative duties.
Confucius: Duty and the Community
There is probably no philosophy that teaches duty ethics more thoroughly or
consistently than Confucianism. “Confucian moral philosophy emphasizes our
duties, as a member of a family and the community” (Boss, p. 314.) Some people
don’t even think of Confucianism as a religion but rather as an ethical system.
This is because the focus of Confucius was on this world rather than on the next
world. “Confucius became the most revered philosopher in China and radically
changed Chinese philosophy by focusing on our duties to humanity rather than
on spiritual concerns” (Boss, p. 314.) Confucius was interested in promoting a
good society and he felt that the best place to start was with our families. If we
could learn to treat our relationships with our relatives with goodness and respect
then this would spill over into society in a very positive way.
Confucius taught people to develop a number of virtues in order to bring their
relationships into harmony. We develop these virtues by doing our duty whether
we feel like it or not. “In Confucianism, yi, or righteousness, demands that we do
what is right simply because it is our moral duty. Moral knowledge - knowledge of
our duties - is possible because our minds are united with the universe. To do
our moral duty is to act in accord with the universal principle - the Tao, also
known as the Way. The Way, writes neo-Confucian philosopher Chi His (11301200), is ‘the principle that nourishes and develops all things.’ The Way is part of
our nature, just as Kant regarded moral law as being within each of us. The
Way, like Kant’s fundamental moral principle, provides a general principle. ‘Is
there a single word which can be a guide to conduct throughout one’s life?’ The
Master said, ‘It is perhaps the word ‘shu.’ Do not impose on others what you
2
yourself do not desire’ (Boss, pp. 314-315.) This is, in fact, the first recorded
version of what will become known as the Golden Rule as taught by Jesus, “to do
unto others as we would have them do unto you.”
This idea that we should treat others as we wish to be treated is one of the great
ethical principles of the world pointing toward a universal values system because
it is found in every religion and culture. It is also a perfect description of duty
ethics. You don’t worry about how others are treating you. Instead you do your
duty to be the kind of person you would like everyone else to emulate.
Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative
Let us now return from China and ancient Israel to Western philosophy. “The
Enlightenment gave rise to some of the most influential philosophy in Western
history, including the deontology of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and the rights
ethics of John Locke (1632-1704) and Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). The rise
of science and technology during this period reinforced the ancient Greek belief
in the fundamental rational nature of humans and the potential of reason to solve
all our problems. The concern with the public sphere that was so central to the
philosophy of Plato and Aristotle was gradually replaced with an emphasis on
autonomy and the dignity of the individual. The individual life, independent of the
community, became a value in and of itself” (Boss, p. 319.) In other words, rather
than simple obedience to the demands of society, a person was to think for
themselves and try to figure out what was best according to the light of reason
rather than tradition.
Kant had so much confidence in reason that he believed that when people
stopped to figure things out the right action would become obvious. “Kant
believed that most people already knew right from wrong. Kant believed that the
problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally right but in doing it.
His primary concern was not to produce a list of duties but to establish a
metaphysical groundwork or foundation for ethics that would explain, once and
for all, why we ought to behave morally” (Boss, p. 320.) We don’t have a thinking
problem; we have a willing problem.
We do not will the good, perhaps, because we do not see the necessity of doing
so. “Only reason, Kant concluded, can provide a sound foundation for the
universality of morality. He wanted to keep morality free from the taint of selfinterest and external considerations (heteronomy). If there is a moral law and if it
is to be morally binding, then it must be logically compelling. As a rational being, I
can only will what is not logically contradictory; this includes not making an
exception of myself. If a particular action is right or wrong, it must always be so.
Otherwise, we are being logically inconsistent” (Boss, p. 320.) Thus Kant
believed in absolute morals as a logical necessity. We often learn this as children
when we are taught that we can’t say it is O.K. for us to take someone’s toys but
not O.K. for them to take ours. It is either acceptable to take each other’s toys or
3
it is not. We learn that we can’t have it both ways. Kids are very quick top pick up
on this idea of fairness.
Why do we feel compelled to obey moral laws? Where do they come from?
“Because the formulation of general moral principles cannot be derived from
empirical experience, he concluded that moral knowledge must be a priori. An a
priori proposition is one that we can know to be true prior to or without reference
to actual experience. Kant referred to the a priori aspect of morality as the
metaphysical foundation of morality” (Boss, p. 322.) Kant taught that morality
presented itself to humanity the same way space and time do - that is, they are
“built in,” so to speak. You can’t see anything outside of space and time because
this is the way our minds work, almost like seeing the world through a pair of
glasses that you can never take off. Morality is the same for Kant. It is a given
reality that we simply discover rather than create.
Kant’s philosophy is known as a rationalist approach to reality because it puts a
great deal of emphasis on our being able to figure things out for ourselves. Kant
did not want people to look to religious revelation or cultural traditions to find the
good, but rather to the light of reason. “Because reason, according to Kant,
provides the foundation of morality, morality would not exist in the world without
rationality. This makes humans, and other rational beings, very special beings.
Whereas rational beings have free will, Kant maintained that everything else in
nature operates according to physical laws. Furthermore, because autonomy is
essential for dignity, only rational beings have intrinsic moral worth. As beings
with intrinsic worth, rational beings can never be treated as expendable but must
be respected with dignity as ends in themselves. This society of all rational
beings, according to Kant, constitutes the ‘kingdom of ends.’ This ideal is
summed up in the second formulation of the categorical imperative (also known
as the practical imperative): So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own
person or in that of any other, in every case as an end in itself, never as a means
only” (Boss, p. 324.)
There is a real dignity given to each of us in Kant’s philosophy. Animals are
neither good nor bad. They do what they do according to their nature. We also
have an animal nature, but as human beings we can rise above nature to make
decisions based on a higher calling. We may feel like killing, for example, when
we have been hurt, but we can choose another course of action that is not based
on immediate gratification of our feelings for revenge.
Kant knew that we needed to undergo a moral development in order to practice
what we could figure out according to reason. It is one thing to know what is right
and it is something else to actually do it. “The duty to improve ourselves as moral
people is important in virtually every ethical system. In Confucian and Buddhist
ethics, continuous self-improvement through right living and right thinking is the
only way to reach moral excellence. For Kant, the development of the good will
and proper self-esteem is the only way to ensure that we will consistently do our
4
duty” (Boss, p. 326.) This is where the idea of practice comes into play. By doing
the good whether we feel like it or not we become good.
The Duty of Self-Improvement
Our rational nature gives us a reason to work toward becoming a good person.
“The cultivation of a good will involves the recognition that we have a duty to treat
people as beings of infinite value. As rational beings, we have just as much moral
value as anyone else. Kant believed that our primary moral duty is self-respect
and the development of proper self-esteem. We have a duty to treat ourselves
with respect, just as we have a moral duty to treat others with respect and
dignity” (Boss, p. 330.) This inherent sense of equality is probably where our
sense of fairness comes from and it also explains the nature of why people feel
that things like racism are inherently wrong. Even if we don’t have the skills to
think about it we have the inner feeling that to be treated poorly based on our sex
or skin color is not right.
Kant was critical of an egotism that can substitute for true self-esteem. “Selfesteem that is not founded upon the development of moral character and good
will encourages self-deception, egoism, and narcissism rather than genuine
moral growth” (Boss, p. 331.) True self-worth does not make you feel superior to
someone else. It makes you cherish them more because, just as you are unique,
so are they!
Kant also recognized, long before modern psychology, that true self-esteem
comes from an inner recognition rather than an outer achievement. “Proper selfesteem is not the result of empty praise or membership in a gang. According to
Kant, we have a duty to use our freedom responsibly. People who rely on the
flattery of others to inflate their self-esteem are not autonomous moral agents;
true self-respect does not depend on outward achievements or the praise of
others, but comes from having a good will and living a principled life. Like
happiness, proper self-esteem cannot be pursued as an end in itself. It is
developed by seeking and living the good life” (Boss, p. 332.) Self-esteem comes
from feeling good about ourselves because of who we are rather than what
others think of us. Kant said we could only feel good about ourselves when we
were doing the right things. To live against reason and go against self-evident
principles was only to feel defeated and useless.
Once we recognize the importance of duty, how do we know if duties are
absolute or not? “Kant believed that, for moral duties to be universal, they have
to be absolute; however, does it necessarily follow? [Swedish-born American
philosopher] Sissela Bok (b. 1934), like other deontologists, agrees with Kant that
moral rules such as ‘do not lie’ should be universal rather than relative to an
individual or a culture. Everything being equal, we expect everyone to abide by
this rule. If there were no rule against lying, society as we know it would soon
come to a grinding halt. But would we also want to make the rule ‘do not lie’
5
absolute - that is, binding in every case? Like Bok, most deontologists say no.
They disagree with Kant that accepting a moral rule as universally valid entails
going the extra step to claim that it must also be absolutely binding - that there
can never be any exceptions. By doing this, critics claim, Kant has committed the
fallacy of accident” (Boss, p. 336.) That is, most deontologists agree that there
are exceptions to the rules and these exceptions do not hurt the principles in
question but rather prove them. After all, ethics is about searching for and being
able to live a life of goodness. The rules should help us do that rather than
become a stumbling block on the way.
In other words, what is important is not obedience to a specific rule, but the
fostering of goodness. In most cases that will indeed mean following the rules;
but sometimes we need to be flexible enough to follow the good and where it
leads. “Kant reduced morality to abstract duties or the ought. [Scottish
deontologist] W.D. Ross (1877-1971), however, pointed out that there are times
when the ought or good and what is right are not the same. In other words, we
may acknowledge that we ought not to lie, but situations may occur when it is
right to lie. If lying seems the only way to save someone’s life, then even though
in principle we ought not to lie, in this case it would be the right thing to do.
Recognizing the ought as having universal validity does not necessarily entail
that these principles are absolute or always the right ones to follow in every
situation” (Boss, p. 339.)
This is one reason why ethics can be complicated for so many of us. Many times
things are clear, but sometimes they are not. I think this is one attraction to
fundamentalist approaches to morality. You simply follow the rules and you don’t
have to think about it. When you have to contemplate what to do you can
experience a certain kind of anguish that comes from a lack of certainty. This is
so uncomfortable for many people that they simply avoid it.
Another way of looking at duties would see them not so much as specific rules of
behavior but as the process of fostering a certain way of life. Take the cultivation
of self-improvement. “Self-improvement as a moral duty entails constantly
striving to improve our knowledge (wisdom) and our virtue. The duty of selfimprovement is important in virtually every ethical system” (Boss, 340.) It may not
tell us what to do in any specific situation, but the more we cultivate wisdom and
compassion the more likely we will be able to figure out a satisfactory answer to
our moral problems and be able to live at peace with our choices.
There are many virtues and attitudes we could study if we had more time, but for
the sake of simplicity I want to touch on just one other that we don’t often think of
in the same category as self-control or courage, but that has a large impact on
our sense of goodness, and that is the amount of gratitude we have in our lives.
“Gratitude is morally admirable in virtually every culture. Many psychologists and
sociologists regard gratitude as an inborn emotional response. Sociologist Georg
Simmel maintained that gratitude is the fundamental bond that forms and holds
6
societies together. The Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero called
gratitude ‘the mother of all virtue.’ Not to show gratitude or to return a favor
begrudgingly is seen as a great insult and an indication of a mean personality.
The Omaha Indians of North America said of the ungrateful person: ‘He does not
appreciate the gift. He has no manners’” (Boss, p. 342.) Gratitude fosters
goodness because when we are grateful we want to be kind and considerate. We
realize our obligations to give back to our families and society and it motivates us
to do the right thing. So while gratitude, like self-improvement, won’t always give
us a specific answer to moral dilemmas, it does foster a level of goodness in us
that helps us move in the right direction.
The Duty of Justice
When we talk about goodness we are often talking about justice. So much of our
legal system is based in this aspect of morality that we need to take a look at this
idea of justice, this elusive quality that has had philosophers seeking to find its
essence since the time of Socrates. In society you can’t always require people to
be good in the sense of requiring people to be kind to one another or thoughtful
or forgiving, but you can try to establish basic parameters of justice. “The duty of
justice is regarded by many philosophers as our most important duty as
members of our community. The ongoing duty of justice requires that we give
each person equal consideration. Because laws and social institutions are
generally the agencies for balancing conflicting interests, the issue of justice is
closely tied in with that of the good society; however, legal justice is not always
consistent with moral justice. Not all laws are just, nor are all demands for justice
addressed by laws. The duty of justice is generally subdivided by philosophers
into two types: distributive and retributive justice” (Boss, p. 345.) Distributive
justice has to do with fairness and retributive justice has to do with making things
right after there has been a violation.
Distributive justice has much to do with the rights ethics we will discuss a little
later. Basically it asks us to consider what some of the basic things people can
expect from our society are. “Distributive justice refers to the fair distribution of
benefits and burdens in a society. Benefits include education, highways, housing,
economic opportunities, and police and fire protection. Taxes, jury duty, and
military conscription are examples of shared burdens” (Boss, p. 345.) The issues
surrounding distributive justice are never solved once and for all. It is an ongoing
process of trying to allow everyone a fair chance without holding back others
from being able to excel.
The idea of distributive justice is much newer in many ways than retributive
justice, which often seems more obvious. When we think of the “justice system”
we usually think of courts and prisons. “Retributive justice, the second type of
justice, involves punishment for wrong-doing. Punishment for a crime, according
to most deontologists, is our duty because the moral order requires that the guilty
should suffer in proportion to the magnitude of their crime. Retributive justice,
7
according to Kant, belongs to the judicial or penal system, rather than private
judgment. Retributive justice is not the same as revenge, which is based on
sentiment rather than reason. Nor should it be based on utilitarian calculations of
the consequences of punishment in specific cases” (Boss, p. 349.) In fact, from a
utilitarian point of view, one has to wonder how well our system of punishments
works? That is, what is the point? How often did punishment actually help us as a
child? Sometimes we learn best from suffering the natural consequences of our
choices. But is that the same as an arbitrary punishment? There may be a good
argument for locking people up who are a danger to society, but if it is just to
punish them then we must ask: how it is helping them or us? After all, people in
prison are a burden on our society financially and in other ways.
One must also ask what it is about justice that has to do with goodness
specifically. There is this assumption that it is deeply connected with goodness.
But what if punishment just has to do with revenge? Is revenge a virtue we want
to cultivate? Does it lead to a better society? “The impersonal demands of
retributive justice can also come into conflict with care ethics and the moral
principle of ahimsa (nonviolence). In addition, a justice system based on
punishment has been criticized for simply increasing violence in the world and in
the heart of the wrongdoer rather than restoring justice. Jesus, in particular,
spoke out against retributive justice” (Boss, p. 350.) We know that many people
come out of prison worse than when they went in. Community service rather than
jail time for non dangerous criminals is one way our society is trying to figure out
how to seek justice without causing more problems in the long run.
Critique of Deontology
Duty ethics tends to focus on the rather modern phenomenon of individualism.
“Western deontologists have been accused of promoting an abstract moral
philosophy that sacrifices community in the name of individual autonomy. Kant’s
description of the moral community as a collection of autonomous units has
especially come under fire. Kant’s assumption that people are basically
autonomous, private units who are free to carry out the moral law fails to take
into consideration that we are all part of a wider social network of relationships”
(Boss, p. 351.) Buddhist ethics, for example, wants us to focus on our
interconnection and interdependence rather than on our individuality, which
ultimately is considered an illusion.
How much do our ethics stem from our relationships with others? Some people
feel this has much more to do with how we form our ethical nature than simply
thinking about things in a rational manner. “Deontologists tend to focus too much
on justice and abstract principles and ignore moral sentiments such as caring. By
reducing morality to one component - moral judgment - deontology fails to take
into account the influence of relationships and the role of moral sensitivity in
informing our moral values. Knowing what is right on the level of reason does not
necessarily mean that we will do what is right. Reason alone, without the ability
8
to sympathize with others, seems unable to produce the categorical imperative or
to inspire us to respect others” (Boss, pp. 351-352.) One of the biggest
frustrations with our legal system is that its laws are geared toward the average
situation and person but people are not average, they are unique individuals.
How do mandatory sentencing laws work in situations such as that?
Does justice conflict with caring? Is there a place in our system for mercy? “Carol
Gilligan, in In a Different Voice (1972) said, ‘While an ethic of justice proceeds
from the premise of equality - that everyone should be treated the same - an
ethic of care rests on the premise of nonviolence - that no one should be hurt’”
(Boss, p. 352.) We move in this direction when we let first time offenders avoid
going to prison, but give them another chance. We see this at work when we
have drug offenders given treatment instead of jail time. But as with all complex
social situations, our justice system is an ongoing work in progress.
Sometimes deontology is seen as an opposing view to utilitarianism. In reality
they both may be better when held together than when they are artificially
separated. “Deontology may be compatible with consequentialist theories. Most
deontologists believe that consequences, though not as important as duty,
should be taken into consideration” (Boss, p. 353.) Most utilitarians realize that
duties rightly understood tend to lead naturally to the greatest good for the
greatest number.
Now that we have studied duty ethics, we will examine rights ethics. This is
something that is easy to take for granted, but we do so at our own peril. It too
may not be a completely satisfactory ethical theory, but most philosophers see it
as an important piece to the ethical puzzle of figuring out how to live an ethical
life and in determining the nature of what it means to be good.
Rights Ethics
Wherever people have gathered together in societies there has been an
assumption of certain basic rights, but for some reason these rights have not
been fully discussed in recent modern times. “With the exception of natural rights
ethics, rights ethics does not exist as a separate theory but as part of broader
moral theories such as deontology, utilitarianism, and natural law ethics” (Boss,
p. 356.) The nature of rights is of current interest because it is an ongoing
discussion at the level of local, national, and global politics.
Rights are often contrasted with responsibilities. They go together. But at the
same time, throughout history the primary goal of ethical theories was to help us
understand what our responsibilities were, not our rights. “Before the eighteenth
century, the focus of moral theory was primarily on duty - duty to the king, to
God, to the state, to the church, and to the moral law. The language of rights in
Western philosophy emerged mainly in the context of the growing confrontation
with the idea of absolute sovereignty. Kings had previously claimed to have the
9
divine right to rule. Now, their subjects were claiming that they also had rights
that the sovereigns were bound to respect. This dissatisfaction culminated in the
U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration of the
Rights of Man and Citizen (1789)” (Boss, p. 356.) It is not a coincidence that the
age of reason gave birth to all of the great liberation movements. It seems to
have suddenly become obvious to a growing number of people that it was not
reasonable to oppress people because of their race and gender. What changed
in human consciousness?
An interesting question for those who emphasize relativity is to wonder whether
rights were created or discovered. Was slavery always wrong and people finally
figured this out or was it only made wrong when people decided it was wrong?
“Cultural relativists claim that the moral rights outlined in these documents did not
exist before the acceptance of these documents by their respective societies.
Rights ethicists disagree; they claim that the documents did not create these
rights. Instead, the writers of these documents were demanding that certain Godgiven rights formerly denied by society be recognized” (Boss, p. 357.) Even then,
we have taken a long time to fully honor America’s founding documents, as the
Civil Rights and Women’s Rights movements have made clear. Knowing what is
right and implementing it seem to be two separate things all too often. This is a
sad statement on our current condition, but at least we can take some comfort in
the fact that things seem to move forward slowly but surely.
The biggest problem philosophically with the idea that we create rights rather
than discover them is that rights are then negotiable. “If rights are the creation of
society, as cultural relativists claim, then rights can be removed by societal laws,
as happened in the 1936 German supreme court ruling that deprived Jews of
most of their rights” (Boss, p. 359.) We have looked at our moral communities in
past lectures and how wide we draw our circles. Who is included and who is
excluded? We have historical examples of when those who were included were
later excluded, such as the Japanese in America in World War II. Thus we have
to keep a clear eye on the nature of rights and how our understanding of them
can play an important role in how well we honor these rights.
Human Rights, Moral Rights, and Legal Rights
The whole world has only recently agreed on some basic rights for all people at
all times. Just think of the thousands of years of human society, and it is only in
the past century that people were able to come together to agree on some basic
principles. “In 1948, the United Nations issued the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. According to it, human rights are not simply a Western creation
but belong to all people everywhere” (Boss, p. 359.) These rights include such
things as the freedom from slavery, torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment
among many other things. It is sad that we are still a long way from being able to
live up to these standards, but we at least have these basic principles to unite us
and they set the bar high enough that we have some important goals to aim
10
toward. In addition to human rights there are now advocates for the rights of
animals and nature itself.
One of the biggest issues in ethics is regarding our moral versus our legal rights.
“Much of the current debate over rights in the United States focuses on
constitutional rights; however, moral and legal rights can conflict. Because the
U.S. Constitution and our laws are not the source of fundamental moral rights, it
is possible to have a legal or constitutional right that violates a moral right. The
fact that women did not have the legal right to vote in this country until 1920 did
not mean that there was no moral basis for the demand that women be given
voting rights; the fact that women now have the legal right to abortion likewise
does not necessarily mean that the right to abortion is a moral right” (Boss, p.
362.)
People often confuse what is legal with what is good and just. But history is full of
laws that were unjust and almost what we would call evil today. As a result it is all
too easy for people to think they are morally upright citizens when they simply
obey the laws of the land. We have been reminded again and again by people
such as Martin Luther King, Jr. that sometimes it is morally wrong to obey unjust
laws.
There are also legal rights that have nothing to do with ethics and morality. “We
also have certain legal rights, such as the right to operate a motor vehicle, that
are not moral rights nor do they violate any moral rights. Similarly, not all moral
rights are legal rights. We have a moral right, but not a legal right, to fidelity from
our spouses or significant others. We also have a moral, but not a legal, right not
to be deceived by our family and friends” (Boss, p. 362.) You can be prosecuted
for breaking a contract with a friend, but not for gossiping about them behind their
back. Both might be ethical issues, but only one of them is a legal issue.
Natural Rights Ethics
The English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) was one of the first
philosophers to write about rights and take them seriously as something that
need to be respected. “The philosophical doctrine of natural rights first appeared
in Western philosophy in the seventeenth century as a demand for equality for all
people. Natural rights ethicists argue that all humans have rights apart from their
membership in a civil society or political state. Instead, rights are self-evident and
God-given and exist independently of and prior to any duties we may have.
These rights stem from our human nature. According to natural rights ethicists,
humans alone have rights because of our special creation in the image of God.
We do not have to qualify to have rights, nor do we earn them. The claim of
equality is not something we invent or determine by law; it is self-evident, even
though humans are obviously unequal in terms of physical, mental, and social
characteristics. These rights are also inalienable; they cannot be taken away.
Because only humans have rights, according to most natural rights ethicists, the
11
term natural rights is often used synonymously with the term human rights”
(Boss, p. 364.) People from other cultures, such as the Native Americans and the
Buddhists had extended rights to non-human animals and even nature, but they
too did not write and articulate it as clearly as they are now doing in a world
under threat from environmental catastrophe.
We studied Ayn Rand in an earlier lecture when we learned about ethical
egoism. She was also a strong advocate for rights ethics. “According to her, the
doctrine of natural rights created the possibility of free societies. The United
States is the first free society founded upon natural rights ethics. Only through
capitalism, Rand argued, can individual rights and a free society be sustained.
‘Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism,’ she wrote, ‘are the only advocates
of man’s rights.’ Only in a capitalist society does the right to life and property
belong to the individual rather than to the government. In a capitalist society, the
sole purpose of government is the protection of our individual rights. Our ability to
choose how to use our property and our choice of a career and of where to shop
or where to sell our goods or labor are regarded by Rand as intimately related to
our freedom to pursue the good life. Inadequate resources may limit our freedom
and our ability to achieve our concept of the good life, but according to her, this
cannot be used as a general objection to free enterprise” (Boss, pp. 368-369.)
People would criticize this understanding of rights because the right to own
property, for example, is not much help to those who have no property in the first
place. But it does show capitalism in one of its best lights. While it does play
down the role of community, it stresses the nobility of the individual.
There are probably no critics of Rand stronger than the Marxists. Karl Marx
(1818-1883) “rejected the doctrine of natural rights as a bourgeoise invention. He
believed that the plight of the workers in capitalist countries such as England was
due, in part, to the acceptance of natural rights ethics. On the surface, natural
rights ethics is an abstract philosophical theory. In reality, Marx argued, the list of
so-called natural rights is historically conceived to justify certain economic and
political systems. For example, Locke’s ‘natural right to own property’ (including
slaves) serves to protect the holdings of those in power - the landowning
bourgeois - rather than the majority of people who cannot afford to exercise their
‘natural’ right to own property. The right to own property, in turn, justifies freemarket capitalism and ethical egoism, by legitimating the increasing
accumulation of property in the hands of the few, independently of any
considerations of those who are unable to exercise this right” (Boss, p. 372.) In
other words, to use terminology we recently learned, natural rights ethics does
not deal with distributive justice very well. Life is not fair. There seems to be no
doubt about that. But do we base our ethics on this given fact or is it possible to
find a way to level the playing field so that all people have an opportunity for a
good life, not just the lucky few?
Marx wanted us to think in terms of community rather than individualism. “Unlike
Locke and Rand, Marx argued that rights do not exist as an abstraction but as
12
part of our membership in a civil society. A right that can only be exercised if we
have the power to assert ourselves, he contended, is a ‘meaningless mockery’ to
those who lack social and political power. Rights are not based on self-assertion,
Marx maintained; rather, rights are demands that create duties for society to
provide its members with certain social goods” (Boss, p. 372.) People who place
emphasis on individualism want people to “pull themselves up by their own
bootstraps” and make something of themselves. There is even a certain nobility
in this idea as long as any given person has the opportunity to do so.
However, if there are no jobs and no educational or training opportunities, then
what is a person to do? There is a saying: “It takes money to make money.” What
do you do if you have no money to begin with? How do you get started? These
are the questions that drove Marx to formulate his ideas. “Marx argued that rights
are not just based on our ability to assert them, but on our interests and needs as
members of a civil society. For example, if a person has a right to an education,
then the state has a corresponding duty to provide this education” (Boss, p. 373.)
It is important to keep in mind that the capitalism of Marx’s day was not the same
as we have today in the United States. Many of the improvements, however, are
a result of Marxist criticism. One example of how things have improved are our
laws regarding child labor. Children had no protection at the time of Marx and this
horrified him, just as conditions in modern sweatshops continue to haunt most of
us.
Liberation Ethics
Religious people also have issues with an unrestricted natural rights ethos. The
Liberation theologian and philosopher “[Gustavo] Gutierrez (b. 1928) is critical of
laissez-faire capitalism, with its focus on liberty rights and its presumption that
setting up a democracy will ensure human rights. Systems of democracy based
on liberalism, Gutierrez notes, do not protect the rights of the poor. Instead, the
right to private ownership has been granted at the expense of the rights of the
poor. Liberal democracy claims to promote equal rights but ‘is only for the middle
class and actually only enhances the flexibility with which the prevailing system
exercises its domination over the popular masses’” (Boss, p. 374.)
In order to understand his position, one must understand the nature of the
poverty he sees on a daily basis in South and Central America. Even in the
United States today we have over 35 million people living below the poverty line
in the richest country in the world. Could it be that our system thrives on cheap
labor? And could this be because it values profits over people? This seems to be
the critics’ perspective.
Can you have a free and democratic society when so many people are poor and
have not time or interest in being involved in the causes of our day? “True
democracy, according to Gutierrez, cannot be imposed upon a culture but must
instead be preceded by the development of a just economic system” (Boss, p.
13
375.) In other words, you needed an infrastructure that is functioning well for
people to be able to exercise their basic rights.
We saw how our own society fell apart in New Orleans in just a few days as the
city disintegrated after the floods of hurricane Katrina. It is all too easy to talk
about philosophy in the abstract when you have your basic needs met. Gutierrez
reminds people in Europe and America that the vast majority of people on this
planet still live in often-desperate poverty. “Philosophical concepts and the
paradigms they support do not exist in a vacuum but have real-life
consequences. Basing rights on the power to assert ourselves or the presence of
an effective agent who will act on our behalf allows us to disregard the rights of
those who lack the political power or force of law to exercise their moral claims”
(Boss, pp. 376-377.) This all too often happens when we fall into the trap of
always blaming the victim. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to do
what they can for themselves, but we also need to make sure that they have the
opportunity to make use of their abilities. This is another example of why
philosophy (and especially ethics) needs to be grounded in real, lived experience
if it is to influence people and society.
In the United States you have the right to an education through high school. But
what do you do if you don’t live near a high school? What do you do if you have
no one to advocate for you? Your right becomes meaningless if it is unenforced.
“On the other hand, if rights are derived from duty, then we are under an
obligation to make sure that rights are honored. Our failure to discharge this
obligation or duty becomes a violation of a person’s right. If I have a duty not to
lie to you, then you have a right to the truth or at least not to be lied to. If you
have a duty of reparation, then I have a right to restitution from you. If we both
have a right to a minimal standard of living, then the community has a moral duty
to provide us with certain necessary goods. If you have the right not to be
harmed, society has a duty to provide security in the form of police protection”
(Boss, p. 377.) It is for this reason that many people think we must add to our
Constitution a Bill of Duties to balance our of Bill of Rights.
Rights and Human Dignity
It is interesting that basic rights we take for granted, such as the right to life, are
not supported by utilitarian ethics. You really need duty ethics to help here. For
example, if you could save several people by killing me and harvesting my
organs, then it makes utilitarian sense to kill me! But then what happens to my
basic right to live unharmed by others? “Immanuel Kant also argued that rights
stem from duties. ‘Respect for the rights of others,’ he wrote, ‘is rooted in
principle.’ According to Kant, the basis of rights is not the principle of utility but
the categorical imperative. Because the categorical imperative requires that we
treat other persons with dignity, one of our chief duties is respect for the rights of
others. Rights protect our status as persons. The categorical imperative does not
create any specific rights but rather the formal right to be treated with respect.
14
Our equal right to be treated with dignity is the strongest claim we can assert; it
does not need to be justified” (Boss, p. 378.) This is one of the reasons why more
and more people are taking an interest in human rights and the abuse of human
rights. There is a growing realization that when the rights of some people are
threatened then the rights of all people are threatened. It gets to the heart of the
question, “What kind of society do you want to be a part of?”
There are both secular and religious adherents to rights ethics. Secular rights
ethicists are represented by groups such as the humanists, who advocate for the
basic dignity of all people according to the light of reason. Religious people tend
to see it as a God given right to life and liberty. “The classic expression of the
Roman Catholic doctrine on human rights is contained in Pope John XXIII’s 1963
encyclical ‘Pacem in terris,’ which affirms the equality of all humans ‘by reason of
their natural dignity.’ Furthermore, the rights that stem from natural law should be
protected by human law and special programs to ensure the rights of ‘the less
fortunate members of the community [who are] less able to defend their rights’”
(Boss, p. 379.)
While secular and religious people disagree on the source of rights, they both
agree on the need to honor and protect the rights of all people. The problem is
discovering the best way of doing this. Karl Marx advocated socialism and Ayn
Rand advocated capitalism. Good and thoughtful people gather on both sides of
these arguments and everything in between as well! What are we to do?
This is one of the areas where we run into problems with cultural relativity. This is
an irritant because it sounds so great and yet leads to endless difficulties!
“Divergent interpretations and ordering of rights and duties can lead to conflict
when two cultures come together” (Boss, p. 380.) If you believe in the separation
of church and state, how do you deal with a culture that believes in its
unification? If you believe in women’s rights, how do you deal with a culture that
does not respect them?
As our world shrinks we are seeing more and more conflicts over who gets to
declare what is right and what is wrong. “Respecting human rights on an
international level involves respecting cultural diversity and national selfdetermination. On the other hand, respect for the equal rights of all people also
involves a duty to protest cultural practices that trample upon the most basic
human rights of certain groups of people, thereby depriving them of their dignity”
(Boss, p. 381.) We are still struggling to understand the nature of relativity and
universality. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. How do we include them
both?
Buddhism and Rights Ethics
Another perspective we have to consider after Liberation Ethics and Marxist
Ethics comes from the Eastern world. “Buddhism stresses the importance of
15
cultivating universal awareness, including harmony with nature. Our most
important duty is not to harm living beings (ahimsa). All living beings, not just
humans, have a correlative right not to be harmed. The right to be treated with
respect and not to be harmed extends not just to humans but to all of nature”
(Boss, p. 382.) Buddhism is a growing religion in the United States. We can be
sure American values will influence it and we can only wonder how it will
influence America and its understanding of rights.
One of the biggest differences between Buddhist philosophy and rights ethics is
that Buddhist philosophy starts off from the foundation of consciousness and
rights ethics starts off from the foundation of individuality. As a result they come
to different conclusions. “Contemporary Buddhist ethicists regard the egoism and
self-assertion model of natural rights ethics as destructive to individual selfrealization and to community. Our Western economy, based on an individualistic
concept of natural human rights, where there is no correlative duty to act
compassionately and avoid harming others, has created a world where danger
and misery abound. Buddhist ethicists maintain that we cannot solve worldwide
problems of human misery and environmental destruction while permitting an
individualism that allows people the right to freely pursue their own concept of the
good life at the expense of other human and nonhuman beings” (Boss, p. 383.)
What curtails and guides self-interest? Again it seems to be not an either/or
situation but a loss of balance. Without the gains of individualism people were
lost in the group. But without relationships and traditions provided by the groups
we belong to, individuals get lost. Somehow we have to find an ethical path that
integrates the best of all these views.
Liberty (Negative) Rights and Welfare (Positive) Rights
We have talked about duties and rights. “Just as there are different categories of
duties, moral rights can be divided into liberty rights and welfare rights. Welfare
or positive rights entail the right to receive certain social goods such as adequate
nutrition, housing, education, and police and fire protection. Liberty or negative
rights entail the right to be left alone to pursue our legitimate interests without
interference from the government or other people. Our legitimate interests are
those that do not violate other people’s similar and equal interests. A misogynist
may have an interest in keeping women out of the workplace, but this does not
give him the right to discriminate in hiring because that would violate women’s
right to equal opportunity. Parents may have an interest in having a night on the
town, but they do not have the right to do so if this violates their young children’s
right to security and reliable supervision” (Boss, p. 384.) Learning to balance our
interests with our rights and duties is part of the process we all go through as we
mature. In some ways it is a process that is never completed because life itself is
dynamic and situations are always changing.
16
Part of that ongoing discussion is the recognition of rights as a growing field of
study. People did not have the right to freedom of the press, for example, until
the Bill of Rights was passed. Will we grant other rights in the future? “One of the
problems in formulating public policies regarding the distribution of social goods
is defining what counts as welfare or positive rights. Do we have a right to free
medical care? If so, do we have a welfare right only to minimal medical care or to
the best medical care available? Do we also have a right to a college education?
Does this mean that we have a right to free tuition if we cannot afford to pay for it
ourselves? Do we have a right to a happy childhood?” (Boss, p. 388.) Where do
basic rights stop? Do we all have the right to travel the world, be independently
wealthy, and never suffer injury? You see it can easily get silly and out of hand.
But that is only when we draw out the extremes. In practice it is difficult to know
where to draw the line.
Then there is the ongoing problem of how my rights interact with your rights. “The
extent and limits of our liberty rights can be just as ambiguous. Do we have a
right to work in an obscenity-free environment? Or does freedom of speech entail
that our coworkers have a right to use obscene language in the workplace? Does
freedom of the press extend to publishing racist and sexist material? Do people
have a right to smoke cigarettes in public buildings such as restaurants?” (Boss,
p. 388.) How do we make these decisions and figure all of these things out? It is
not easy! That is why we need to study and learn all we can and at the same
time practice a little patience, because the task of learning how to live together in
peace and prosperity, with mutual respect and kindness, is an ongoing task! The
people who think there are easy answers to these kinds of problems reveal only
their own lack of thought.
Rights and the Moral Community
A final problem we will consider is how to determine who is included in the rights
community and whether this will include animals and nature itself? “The
possession of rights has been interpreted as stemming from either (a) the power
of self-assertion or (b) the interests of beings who may or may not be moral
agents. These two models are based on two different paradigms that often come
into conflict in discussions over who has what rights and what it means to be the
bearer of certain rights” (Boss, p. 391.) You end up in a very different place
depending on which side you adhere to in this debate.
The power of self-assertion makes sense when you first look at it. “Traditional
natural rights ethics supports a model of rights based on self-assertion.
According to this model, the only beings who have rights are those who can
make and defend moral claims. Humans, it is argued, have a capacity for
rationality and autonomy. Nonhuman animals, on the other hand, lack this
capacity for moral choice and self-assertion. Therefore, only humans are
members of the moral community” (Boss, p. 391.) The problem here is that there
are many humans who do not have the ability to assert their rights. What
17
happens to children? What happens to those with mental disabilities? What
happens to the elderly with Alzheimer’s disease?
Philosophers have tried to find a way around this. “An alternative model is based
upon the principle of equal consideration of interests rather than on selfassertion. According to this model, the existence of interests is based on our
capacity for suffering and pleasure and our concept of the good life. Infants have
a right to a secure and safe environment because it is in their interests. The
interests model starts with the presumption of moral equality. The principle of
equality among humans, as we have already noted, is not based on an empirical
description of the actual equality but on a moral ideal of equal concern for others.
This principle of equal respect applies to all humans, regardless of their social
and political power or their particular abilities” (Boss, p. 392.) This model of
interest can be expanded to include animals and other natural things. It is close
to the Buddhist ideal of including all sentient beings (beings that can suffer) in our
moral community. This is a vast ideal that requires people to really reconsider
many of their choices and shopping habits so that the circle of compassion can
be enlarged to the greatest extent possible. In that sense it is an ongoing
process.
Critique of Rights Ethics
If you don’t believe that God grants humans a special dignity then how do you
ground rights? “The theological basis of natural rights ethics, which privileges
humans as a special creation, is difficult, if not impossible, to justify on either
philosophical or empirical grounds. The reduction of nonhuman animals, and the
environment to the status of resources for humans has had devastating effects
on our environment” (Boss, p. 396.) Most of us live in the United States, in an
officially secular culture that is heavily weighted with many different religious
ideals. Without religious agreement it can be difficult to get people to agree that
certain rights should be granted and/or safeguarded. If you do manage to grant
and protect rights then it seems to many philosophers that it is nothing but pure
arbitrariness that then excludes animals from these same rights.
Is Rights Ethics just a Western cultural construct? Should it therefore be imposed
on others? “The belief of natural rights ethicists that rights are self-evident is also
problematic. In fact, there is a great deal of disagreement on this issue” (Boss, p.
396.) Is the right to own property really a right? If rights don’t come from a divine
source but we simply make them up, then where do we draw the line? Does
everybody have a right to everything?
Another problem stems from the need to distinguish between the different kinds
of rights. Capitalists are generally more supportive of liberty rights and socialists
are generally more supportive of welfare rights. “The separation between liberty
and welfare rights is not clear-cut” (Boss, p. 396.) The problem is that both kinds
of rights cross over into each other. The problem is not in the middle but in the
18
extremes. How can you exercise your liberty without basic welfare rights such as
public infrastructure, police and fire protection, and hospitals? On the other hand,
does that mean everyone has the right to medical care, housing, and education?
What use is your right to vote if you can’t feed your family?
Finally you have the two models of support for rights such as self-assertion or
ethics. “Not all people are equally capable of asserting their rights. The
philosophical belief that all people are created equal has too often been treated
as a description rather than as a moral ideal” (Boss, p. 396.) What do you do if
you can’t assert your rights? Do you lose them? What if you can assert your
rights; do you then have to give them up (and your wealth and advantages too) to
those who are weaker than you?
Summary
None of these questions are easy to answer. Rights are complicated because on
the one hand, we take them for granted these days, while on the other hand, they
are so elusive. The simplest conclusion is to remember that we probably need to
add rights ethics to our growing pile of ethical tools rather than decide that it is a
sufficient theory all of its own (which it really isn’t anyway).
In this lecture we have studied deontology and rights ethics. Deontology is the
opposite of utilitarianism in that it focuses on doing the right thing rather than on
concentrating on what the results will be. In other words, it is focused on means
rather than ends. Rights ethics studies the nature of ethics from the point of view
of trying to understand our rights and duties of living in the modern world, trying
to balance the needs of individuals with those of the community. Both of these
add to our understanding of the richness, depth, and complexity of ethics and the
search for goodness.
We have also been focused on discovering basic principles, or ethical rules, for
living. In the next lecture we will turn to our last theory of ethics, virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics says that rules of conduct are far less important than simply being a
good person. In other words, good people don’t have to worry about the rules as
much because being good themselves, they will naturally do what supports
goodness in themselves and in their relationships.
Until then, follow the rules!
Bibliography:
Judith A. Boss, Ethics For Life: A Text With Readings, Fourth Edition, [New York,
New York: McGraw Hill, 2008]
Donald Palmer, Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy
Made Lighter, Fourth Edition, [New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 2006]
19
Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, [New York, New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1945]
Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That
Have Shaped Our World View, [New York, New York: Harmony Books, 1991]
Bruce Waller, You Decide! Current Debates in Contemporary Moral Problems,
[New York, New York: Pearson, 2006]
20