ASSIGNMENT 04
BU490 Business Ethics
Directions: Unless otherwise stated, answer in complete sentences, and be sure to use correct English, spelling and grammar. Sources must be cited in APA format. Your response should be four (4) double-spaced pages
Respond to the items below.
Define the following: a right, a legal right, a moral right, a human right. How are they related?
There are distinct differences between a right, a legal right, a moral right and a human right. A right, by definition, is “a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way” (Google, 2015). A legal right is any right that enjoys the protection and defense of a legal code. Questions or arguments as to its existence can be solved simply by finding the relevant legal document or legislation that proves it to be fact. A moral right, by contrast, exists prior to and independent of any legal right. It does not need the law, in other words, to be considered a right(Fagan, n.d.). An example would be slavery. Even though there was no law that provided freedom, many people felt that the slaves of the southern U.S. had the moral right to be free citizens of the U.S. Finally, human rights are defined as those fundamental things necessary for each individual to lead a minimally decent life, including negative and positive prerequisites(Fagan, n.d.). They include, for example, rights against torture, and rights to health care. They are the
“…basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people.. .they are of high priority, and…compliance with them is mandatory rather than discretionary. Human rights are frequently held to be universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them, and to be independent in the sense that they exist and are available as standards of justification and criticism whether or not they are recognized and implemented by the legal system or officials of a country.”(Fagan, n.d.)
Each of these rights are connected in different ways. A “right” is a broad generalization of what it means to be entitled to something, with additional factors helping to specify what provides that right: the legal system, moral law, or humanity. Human rights are those rights that humans have just because they are humans…they serve as moral guarantees that individuals will have a minimally good life. They are the “derivative of the concept of a right”(Fagan, n.d.). Human rights cannot be reduced to simple legal code, as well, but share an essential aspect of moral rights in that their very existence is independent of any kind of legal recognition. Despite this, and the fact that they originate as moral rights, a primary goal of human rights is that they achieve legal recognition(Fagan, n.d.). Consider slavery once again. Although freedom is a moral and human right, it need legal recognition in order to achieve its ultimate status in the United States.
What three (3) features define a moral right?
A moral right is defined by three features. First, they are distinct from legal rights in that they are inalienable, equal, and universal. Rights are inalienable in the sense that they cannot be taken away from you without consent, and equal in that they are given equally to all. Moral rights are universal in that they remain the same regardless of location, age, or other circumstance.
Second, moral rights are defined as either natural or special. Natural refers to the process of discovery, rather than creation (as legal rights, for example). Special rights “create corresponding duties in individuals identified by examining the actions or relationships that create the right” ("Moral Rights," 1949). Third, every moral right is either absolute or defeasible. A right either has the power to override any right with which it conflicts—absolute—or it is defeasible, i.e., it can be overridden ("Moral Rights," 1949).
How do we know that people have rights? What is the basis of the moral rights according to a utilitarian view? According to Immanuel Kant?
We know that people have rights because, aside from an innate sense imparting that knowledge and confidence to us, documents such as holy books, constitutions, legal doctrines, and bill of rights have set forth that understanding. These doctrines stem from a “moral universalism and the belief in the existence of a truly universal moral community,” of which all humans are a part (Fagan, n.d.). This is associated originally with Aristotle and the Stoics. Aristotle defended a natural moral order which “has the same validity everywhere and does not depend upon acceptance (Fagan, n.d.). The Stoics embraced the idea that this natural morality was the result of our duty to obey the will of God.
The basis of moral rights according to a utilitarian view is the “greatest good for the greatest number” In straightforward terms, the utilitarian method of determining the morally right thing to do for any situation is to first identify the various actions that could be taken. Second, determine all predictable benefits and harm that could derive from each course of action. Finally, select the course of action that gives the greatest benefits after all harm has been accounted for (Velasquez, 1989).
According to Immanuel Kant, the basis of moral rights is our own fundamental worth or dignity, which means they should never be abused or misused. He expressed the idea that “humanity must always be treated as an end, not merely a means,”(Johnson, 2004) which is used to validate the basic moral right of choosing for oneself, also known as negative or liberty rights. Negative rights are those such as the right not to be bothered, the right not to be killed; they protect some type of liberty or freedom(Johnson, 2004).
Kant’s ideal also validates positive or welfare rights, which are those that offer something necessary to the attainment of one’s well-being. This could be the right to an education, the right to food, the right to housing…all of these, as well, impose an obligation on society to help the individual achieve that right, if necessary (Johnson, 2004).
Fully discuss the idea that human beings have a "natural right" to liberty and a "natural right" to private property, as claimed by John Locke (1632-1704).
Locke was an early proponent of the claim that each human has a natural right to liberty and private property. According to reason, Locke asserted, it is natural law for all men, created equal, that they are free. Therefore, he wrote in his Treatise, there should be a legislated law, “common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man” (Foundation for Economic Education, 2015).
He felt similarly regarding private property. Property was not just things, but an individual’s person. It could not be owned by another—an essential component of liberty. According to Locke, no one can claim rights to any one’s labor or work but that man himself, as his person is his own property and none other’s. “[E]very Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his” (Foundation for Economic Education, 2015).
References
Fagan, A. (n.d.). Human rights. Retrieved from
Foundation for Economic Education. (2015). John Locke: Natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Retrieved from
Johnson, R. (2004, February 23). Kant's moral philosophy. Retrieved from
Moral rights. (1949). Columbia Law Review,49(1), 132-134. Retrieved from
Velasquez, M. (1989). Calculating consequences: The utilitarian approach to ethics. Issues in Ethics,2(1), winter. Retrieved from