Topic 9 - Problems for Rights Theory

Srinivasan’s objection to NRT

You are walking to the library and you see a man drowning. Helping the man would be of little detriment to yourself and would save his life. NRT says that you are not morally obligated to help the man, but it would be wrong not to help him.

Put Srinivasan’s objection into counterexample to a moral principle argument form.

P1. If NRT is true, then walking past a drowning man is morally permissible.

P2. But walking by a drowning man is not morally permissible.

C. Therefore, NRT is not true.

Is Srinivasan’s argument sound?

Yes

P1 Rationale: NRT does not include positive rights, so one is not morally obligated to provide help or aid to the drowning man.

P2 Rationale: It is obviously wrong to not help someone drowning especially if it is at little cost to yourself.

How is Locke’s rights theory different from Nozick’s?

Locke’s theory includes positive rights, one has a right to assistance when in one is in serious need, provided others can provide assistance at not much cost to themselves. Nozick’s theory does not include positive rights.

Explain why if we add positive rights to NRT, it avoids Srinivasan’s objection.

Adding positive rights to NRT would mean that one would be morally obligated to help the drowning man, it would be morally impermissible to walk by the drowning man.

Explain why adding positive rights to NRT then creates a problem with Footbridge.

Adding positive rights would then conflict with the negative rights. The positive rights to protect five people from being run over by the train would outweigh the negative rights of the man not to be killed. It would be morally permissible to push the man off the footbridge.

What are the key elements of Anna’s case?

Anna is in Buenos Aires with her four children. Her host is a former torturer Anna worked against as a human rights worker. He wants to teach her a lesson: the ends justify the means. He orders her to kill her oldest son with a fatal does of potassium chloride or his men will kill all four of her sons.

What does NRT imply about Anna’s case?

Anna should not kill her oldest son so that the other three may live because that would be directly violating his right to life and not to be killed; Anna does not have a moral obligation to stop all four of her sons from being killed.

What does AU imply about Anna’s case?

Anna should kill her oldest son because it would maximize utility. The pain of one son dying is less than that of all four sons dying.

In your opinion, which theory gives the correct result in Anna’s case, NRT or AU, and why?

AU gives the correct result because I think Anna is obligated here to save as many as she can, and the good of saving her three sons outweighs the bad of killing her oldest son.

On factory farms, animals are treated inhumanely. Formulate an argument against NRT based on the case of factory farms.

P1. If NRT is true, then the torturous treatment of the animals on factory farms is morally permissible.

P2. But the torturous treatment of the animals on factory farms is not morally permissible.

C. Therefore, NRT is not true.

Is the factory farm argument sound?

Yes

P1 Rationale: NRT does not consider animals rational beings, and only rational beings, by NRT, have rights, so the treatment of the animals is morally permissible.

P2 Rationale: No being should be subject to torturous treatment.

What part of NRT would need to be revised for it to not imply that factory farming is morally permissible?

Revising who has rights, humanism, vitalism, hedonism.

Humanism about Rights

x has rights if x is human

Vitalism about Rights

x has rights if x is a living being

Hedonism about Rights

x has rights if x can experience pleasure and pain

State a theory about who has rights that would enable NRT to avoid the implication that factory farming is morally permissible.

Vitalism: x has rights if x is a living being

Animals are living beings.

Hedonism: x has rights if x can experience pleasure and pain.

Animals experience pleasure and pain