This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Goold suggests that we can imagine Mrs. Aremac acting in ways that do not fit the ‘mildly affectionate terms’ which I use in my example. Obviously, this is the case; I would never argue that private persons cannot act wrongly. However, Goold’s point strikes me as irrelevant. If it can be shown that a certain account of privacy rights implies that a person like Mrs. Aremac is acting wrongly by doing something that does not seem at all objectionable, then this constitutes a problem for the theory; and this is so independently of the fact that she might be acting wrongly had she acted differently.
This requirement naturally prompts the basic methodological question as to what level of perfection we can plausibly require from a moral theory. However, I shall not engage in this complicated discussion here since both Lever and Goold seem to accept that a theory of privacy right should be regarded as flawed if it implies that Mrs. Aremac is acting wrongly while gazing from her window.
What Lever would have to show is that CCTV violates a privacy right because there are other reasons as to why this type of monitoring is wrong. However, Lever says nothing about what these reasons would consist of. Moreover, it seems rather an odd position to hold that CCTV violates a right to privacy because CCTV is wrong for other reasons.
To object that there is a vital difference between the attitude of private persons and the attitude of the state is of no help: the state also has locks on its administrative buildings.
This view seems to make the discussion of privacy rights conditional on other moral considerations. Unfortunately, Goold does not say anything about what determines whether someone has a right to something.
References
Goold, Benjamin. 2008. The difference between lonely old ladies and CCTV cameras: a response to Jesper Ryberg. Res Publica 14.
Lever, Annabelle. 2008. Mrs. Aremac and the camera: a response to Ryberg. Res Publica 14.
Ryberg, Jesper. 2007. Privacy rights, crime prevention, CCTV, and the life of Mrs. Aremac. Res Publica 13: 127–143.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ryberg, J. Moral Rights and the Problem of Privacy in Public: A Reply to Lever and Goold. Res Publica 14, 49–56 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-008-9048-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-008-9048-0