Rights, Misc

Political ethics, a subfield of applied ethics, is concerned with normative questions about voters, politicians, lobbyists, and other individual political agents. Compared with other fields in applied ethics political ethics has not developed into an area of intense interest in academic philosophy. Debates over the main questions in political ethics occur in mainstream news, on social media, in living rooms and neighborhood bars, etc., but for the most part have not bled over into the pages of philosophy journals and books. (...) This volume aims to fill this gap in the philosophical literature. It contains seventeen original papers by a diverse range of leading scholars on central questions in political ethics. (shrink)

Violating a person's rights is disrespectful to that person. This is because it is disrespectful to someone to violate duties owed to that person. I call these ‘directed duties’; they are the flipside of rights. The aim of this paper is to consider why directed duties and respect are linked, and to highlight a puzzle about this linkage, a puzzle arising from the fact that many directed duties are justified independently of whether they do anything for those to whom they (...) are owed. (shrink)

While discussions about improving society are commonly conducted in terms of human rights, there are serious drawbacks to this approach. People may differ as to the relative importance or the very existence of specific rights, and there are no generally accepted methods for the rational resolution of such disagreements. These difficulties can be avoided if proposed social changes are discussed with respect to a generally accepted end, rather than with respect to a set of rights. And agreement on such an (...) end already exists, inasmuch as most advocates of social improvements want to see social arrangements changed in such a way that everyone will be able to lead a satisfying existence. (shrink)

This is a really good book. Brettschneider’s When the State Speaks is both provocative and persuasive, resolving a stubborn conflict within democratic theory in a way many will initially reject, but which he argues for so effectively that, by the end, the controversial appears the commonsensical.The problem Brettschneider addresses is one with which we are all familiar. In democracies we believe in the right to free speech. We believe that this right is implied by the underlying principles of democracy, and (...) believe that the exercise of this right is essential for democracy to function. We are presented with a conflict when some people use their right to free speech to advocate values that are contradictory to democracy: to argue that not everyone should be allowed to speak, to argue that not all citizens are equal, to argue that some people should be discriminated against for reasons of race, religion, sex, or other distinctions that, in a democracy, we hold to be irrelevant. The probl. (shrink)

The concept of rights is now so dominant in the language of politics that it is becoming difficult to identify its use with any particular approach to the solution of social problems or to gain a clear picture of its significance, its advantages and its disadvantages as a way of conceptualizing and resolving contentious political issues. None the less there is a perceptible shift towards an emphasis on rights in contemporary politics which many welcome and encourage and others question and (...) even reject, a shift which is matched in jurisprudence by the renewed stress which many theorists place on rights as a basic legal concept despite recurrent problems associated with the concept as a tool for legal analysis and moral justification. Conflicting theories of legal rights are canvassed and this in turn feeds into the debate concerning the reality or significance of non-legal rights, for the process of law reform is often presented as a matter of giving legal embodiment to the rights which various interested categories of people are asserted to possess already. (shrink)

Part 1 shows that 'remedy' destabilizes analysis. It has at least five different meanings loosely grouped around the relationship between disease and medicine. In three of those meanings it is functionally synonymous with 'right', which, for all its own instabilities, ought to be preferred. Blackstone encouraged the use of 'remedy'. He stabilized it by putting 'remedies' in a particular relationship with 'wrongs'. However, he built that relationship on an unsound foundation, namely, the proposition, in which John Austin followed him, that (...) every cause of action was a wrong. Part 2 demonstrates the error of that position. The rights which courts realize arise from wrongs and from not-wrongs. The word 'remedy' cannot easily cope with not-wrongs, and its tendency is to destroy the classification of the events from which rights arise. Part 2 also concludes that the habit of thinking of the law in terms of wrongs and remedies encourages a malignant, criminal model of the civil law, here called discretionary remedialism. In that model 'rights' dissolve. Instead, 'liability', as the equivalent of guilt, invites the court to respond with an appropriate remedy, selected by itself, by way of sentence. (shrink)

This paper suggests that rights are best seen as being part of the description of a social state rather than as constituents of the mechanism by means of which society selects a social state, A theory of this kind is outlined in which a social state is modeled as an equilibrium in the game of life played by the citizens of a society.

While it is generally assumed that large corporations today give rhetorical support for basic human rights in public relations documents, skepticism continues toarise about the behavior of these firms. Do company actions support their rhetoric? This paper provides the initial analysis of our study of both rhetoric and practice regarding human rights in a small sample of large U.S. firms. At this point in the analysis, UNGC membership does not appear to have much influence on corporate rhetoric, but may be (...) partially correlated with several measures of corporate performance on human rights issues. (shrink)

Human mobility is dramatically on the rise; globalization and modern technology have increased transportation and migration. Frequent journeys over large distances cause huge energy consumption, severely impact local and global natural environments and raise spiritual and ethical questions about our place in the world. 'Spaces of Mobility' presents an analysis of the socio-political, environmental, and ethical aspects of mobility. The volume brings together essays that examine why and how modern modes of transport emerge, considering their effect on society. The religious (...) significance of contemporary travel is outlined, namely its impact on pilgrimage, Christology and ethics. The essays examine the interaction between humans and their surroundings and question how increased mobility affects human identity and self-understanding. 'Spaces of Mobility' will be of interest to students and scholars seeking to understand the impact of mobility on modern culture and society, the ethics behind contemporary transport systems and the conditions of immigrants in a world of constant travel. (shrink)

Benson, Ophelia The BBC devoted an episode of its television discussion programme The Big Questions in January to asking, 'Should human rights always outweigh religious rights?'.

To find more information about Rowman and Littlefield titles, please visit www.rowmanlittlefield.com.

This article takes a close look at a rhetoric strategy, often used in an attempt to preserve an appearance of neutrality in conflicts over rights. This strategy rests on the concept of symmetry, and in particular concerns symmetry between so-called 'positive rights' (described as the right to obtain or have an object, to engage in an activity, or to enjoy a desired state of affairs) and 'negative rights' (the right not to have this object, not to engage in this activity, (...) or to prevent this state of affairs). When a positive and a negative right protect contradictory options, this strategy conveys that they are of equal standing. The article cautions against the risks entailed by this inference. The deceptive nature of symmetry is first examined in the context of procreation rights and subsequently in other contexts, including conflicts concerning freedom of expression, active euthanasia, and abortion. Our conclusion is that the explicit or implicit recourse to the argument from symmetry is a recurrent feature of rights discourse, deserving attention and cautious handling. (shrink)