Margaret MacDonald, "Natural Rights," pp. 21-40

    Propositions:
        Tautologies
        Contingent, empirical
        Evaluative

            Under which category do moral and social judgments fall?
                    If they are not tautologous or factual, does that mean they have no place in argumentation?

        The general idea of natural law theory is that there is a particular essence or nature of humanity which is known by reason; that essence is reason itself.

    The Social Contract Theory:
    What does it mean to claim that human beings by nature or by their essence are 'rational'?
    Unfortunately for those who base our rights on reason, it is true that not everyone is equally capable of employing reason.
        Note, for example, that "savages" don't dream of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" because "they do not question what is customary.  Neither do the very depressed and downtrodden."
    We have no fixed nature and no ends that all of us pursue.  There is no definition of 'man.'
    The natural rights theorists don't agree on their lists of natural rights.  If there is some immutable nature of man, why is there no set list?
    Take slavery as an example of the meaning of a natural right.  Suppose that we assert that there is a natural law that forbids slavery.  Suppose that this law is articulated in a society in which slavery is legal.  "There is no point in saying there (is) 'really' a natural law which forbade (slavery).  For the natural law (in such a case is) impotent.  Statements about natural law (are) neither statements of natural fact nor legal practice."

    MacDonald's position on 'natural rights':  They are "not given by nature or mystically bound up with the essence of man and his inevitable goal, but (are) determined by human decisions."

    What is the relationship between propositions or assertions about natural rights and our decisions?  Our decisions are expressions of value.  "On this view, value judgments do not state what is true or false but are expressions of feeling, sometimes combined with commands to do or forbear."

    Who makes value decisions and when are they made?
    How are value decisions reached?

        Value decisions are not statements of fact and they are not analytic truths, so they are statements of value.  They are made by members of society, and the society in which they live makes a difference not only in what they will decide, but in how they behave.
    MacDonald's position is that all the characteristics of any human being are equally reasons for the assertion that human beings are of equal worth.
   When we make value assertions, we make them based often on irrational methods of choice, much like the methods of choice we use where merit probably doesn't matter.  It is a matter of artistry, not of logic.

    "There are no true or false beliefs about values, but only better or worse decisions and choices.  And to encourage better decisions we need to employ devices which are artistic rather than scientific.  For our aim is not intellectual assent, but practical effects."
 

Alan Gewirth, "Are There Any Absolute Rights?" pp. 91-109.

    Is the right to life an absolute right?  What does it mean to say that it is?

Clarifications on the concept of a right:

Fulfilled right:  when the duty of another person with respect to your right has been carried out.

Infringed right:  when  the duty of another person with respect to your right is not carried out.

Violated right:  when your right is unjustly infringed.

Overridden right:  when your right is justly infringed.

Absolute right:  when there is no case in which your right can be overridden

        The notion of an absolute right carries with it the double normative claim that there are duties of others and that when these duties are not performed with respect to your rights, justification must be provided.
        The expression of these criteria of an absolute right are based on the PRINCIPLE OF GENERIC CONSISTENCY - that all agents must act in accord with the rights of others as well as himself - that rights must be fulfilled.

        But what happens when two rights are related so that one can be fulfilled only by infringing on another?  The answer is that the right is primary whose fulfillment is more necessary for action.  "This criterion of degrees of necessity for action explains, for example, why one person's right not to be lied to must give way to another person's right not to be killed when these two rights are in conflict."

Levels of Absolute Rights:

    Principle Absolutism - a general formula of rights.  Examples: The Golden Rule, Kant's CI, the Principle of Utility.

    Individual Absolutism - reference to a particular individual who has a right to something where all the grounds for overriding the right have been overcome.

    Rule Absolutism - an intermediate level between the other two.  It does not refer to specific individuals or only to general rules.   It will be such that a rule can be stated describing the right and the correlative duty.  "It is at this level that one asks whether the right to life of all persons or of all innocent persons is absolute, whether the rights to freedom of speech and religion are absolute, and so forth."

    An example for clarification:
    Suppose there are terrorists who threaten to blow up an entire city unless person X tortures his mother.  How do we evaluate this problem?

    The consequentialist says that there are cases in which an individual's rights can be overridden to avoid a disaster.  So, the argument goes, If a person's right to X is fulfilled, a great disaster will occur.  A disaster ought never to occur.  Therefore, X's right should not be fulfilled.
    What the consequentialist doesn't notice is that there is a parallel argument in the opposite direction showing that the individual's right ought to be fulfilled.  If a person's right to X is not fulfilled, then there will be unspeakable evil.  There ought never to be allowed unspeakable evil.  So, the right ought to be fulfilled.
        Now there's quite a problem.   The consequentialist seems not to be able to tell us what to do.  But there is a problem regarding the arguments regarding the use of the word 'then' - in the first case, 'then' is a causal connection. In the second case, 'then' does not imply a causal connection - 'then' indicates the existence of the unspeakable evil itself.  For a person such as the son to torture his mother to death even to avoid harm to many others, he would "lose all self-respect and would regard his life as no longer worth living.  A mother's right not to be tortured to death by her own son is beyond any compromise.  It is absolute."

    Isn't it still the case that the son, in refusing to torture his mother, is responsible for the deaths of many other people?  No.
    1.  Direct and oblique intention:
            The son is not responsible for the deaths of others because he did not intend for them to die.  They are foreseen but unintended consequences of his action.
                This doesn't solve the problem of his responsibility.  Consider the case of an industry that pollutes the environment but doesn't intend to do so.  We still hold the industry responsible for the effects of pollution.

    2.  Killing vs. Letting Die:
        When the son refrains from killing his mother, he doesn't kill the other people.  He simply lets them die.  He doesn't violate their right to life, he simply does not defend their right.   But what if it is within his power to prevent the deaths of others where there is no great cost involved?

    3.  Respecting other persons vs. avoiding bad consequences.  This distinction is not clear.  How can the son respect many persons he allows to die when he could have prevented their deaths?  It doesn't account for degrees of "moral urgency" - "Respect for one person may lead to disrespect of a more serious kind for some other innocent person."

        "The important point is not that he lets these persons die rather than kills them, or that he does not harm them but only fails to help them, or that he intends their deaths only obliquely but not directly.  The point is rather than is only through the intervening of lethal actions of the terrorists that his refusal eventuates in he many deaths.  Since the moral responsibility is not the son's, it does not affect his moral duty not to torture his mother to death, so that her correlative rights remain absolute.

        But does this mean that the deaths of the many persons are justified????
            No.
                    Explanation:  The son's refusal to kill his mother is justified.
                                            Many people die as a result of his refusal.
                                            Therefore, their deaths are justified.
                    This argument is fallacious.  The death of the many is caused by the terrorists, not by the son.

                    Clarification:  The son's refusal to kill his mother is justified.
                                            Many people die as a result of the son's refusal to torture his mother.
                                            The terrorists who demand the torture of the mother will kill many people.
                                            Their killing of many people is unjustified.
                                            Therefore, the son is not responsible for the deaths of many people.
                                            So, his mother's absolute right to life is preserved and his action is justified.
                                            But, the actions of the terrorists are not justified.
                                            Therefore, the deaths of the people are unjustified.
                                            Therefore, even though many people are killed, their deaths are unjustified and their absolute right
                                                to life is preserved.

But now there is another problem.  Does the mother's right to life lead to the conclusion that many other people should die?  To answer the question, consider the distinction between abstract and concrete absolutism.

        Abstract absolutism:  No account of consequences.  Main concern is moral guiltlnessness of the agent.
        Concrete absolutism:  concern is with empirical connections between events and their consequences.
            How does this affect the son?
                    If he is an abstract absolutist, he does not torture his mother, though he allows the deaths of many others to occur.
                    If he is a concrete absolutist, he notices that even if he does torture his mother, the terrorists might kill many others.  Further, if he does torture his mother, it might lead to further threats.  People who would threaten such things aren't to be trusted, so the son does not torture his mother.
                The benefit of this sort of absolutism is that "it serves to protect the rights presupposed in the very possibility of a moral community while at the same time it gives the greatest probability of averting the threatened catastrophe."

    "Agents and institutions are absolutely prohibited from degrading persons, treating them as if they had no rights or dignity."  - this is at the level of Principle Absolutism.  This extends to all persons whether innocent or guilty.