Most people in the USA believe that we have private right. The struggle is that there is no such thing as a private right. A private right would be something that has no influence on any body else. There is no clear-cut difference between public and private. The issue is right and obligation.
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek , Deon, “obligation, duty”) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules. It is sometimes described as “duty-” or “obligation-” or “rule-” based ethics, because rules “bind you to your duty.”
From a deontological point of view, he did not want to give his kidney because he was a coward and he was justifying a lie.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. “Utility” is defined in various ways, usually in terms of the well being of sentient entities, such as human beings and other animals.
According to D & C you find your duty by reasoning. You have to come up with reasons for what you decide.
From a utilitarian point of view for the case of the 5 years old girl needing a kidney, the father should be able to give his daughter the kidney because the risk of him dying those not out weight the need for the girl to have the kidney because more people would benefits from his transplant. You cannot make a decision from a utilitarian perspective just pertaining to you. It recognizes that none of our decision is just prevent and they affect other people’s lives.
Categorical Imperative (in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person’s inclination or purpose.
Kant gives two forms of the categorical imperative:
Behave in such a way that a reasonable generalization of your action to a universal rule will lead to a benefit to a generic person under this universal rule.
Always treat others as ends and not means because there is value in the human life.
Suppose there were a class of people who liked to be ends. Suppose these people, under certain special circumstances, would like to be treated as objects, for example, as tables. They enjoy being tables, and have tablecloths and wine glasses put on their backs, it does them no harm, and they enjoy the experience, and talk about the experience with joy and regard.
Under these circumstances, knowing that you too might want to be a table at some point, would it be ok to treat these people as means and not ends, at least temporarily?
Is there a precise sense in which 1 and 2 are equivalent, as they seem completely different to me.
Perhaps the answer is that by respecting the wish to be means, not ends, you are treating the people as ends, not means. But then it becomes very difficult to actually determine when you are acting correctly according to imperative 2.
To give more realistic precise examples, here are some things that are ok under 1 and not ok under 2:
purchasing blood plasma from a poor, willing donor.
lying to someone about something painful (like whether this person has cancer, or whether she is attractive in that dress, etc).
prostitution, dwarf tossing, and other superficially exploitative professions.
hypothetical imperatives, which are valid only in the presence of some ulterior desire or goale.g., “If you want to be well-liked, do not lie.”)
Why does your rationality indicate your dignity?
The morally law within define our dignity. We only know it by reason.
A right gives his holder a justified claim to something and justified claim to another party. A right is identified as something that out an obligatory claim upon somebody else. Example because we have a right to life, homicide can’t be justified. A right is different at different countries, for example in England if you are 80 it is going to be hard to get a kidney transplant than a 18 years old. This because we judge the value of our lives based on the natural coarse of life. Because we belief that everybody has a natural coarse of life. Beginning and ending, the more future you have the more bidding of right you have to your life. The reverse is the case if the person is old.
The two types of Utilitarianism are: Rule and Act Utilitarianism.
Rule utilitarian considers the consequence of adopting certain rules whereas act utilitarianism disregards the level of rules and justifies actions by direct appeal to the principle of utility.
Act utilitarianism; by contrast, argue that observing a rule such as truth-telling does not always maximal the general good, and that such rule are only rough guidelines. They regard rule utilitarian as unfaithful to the fundamental demands of the principle of utility. Example: a physician do not and should not always tell the truth to their patients or their
Families. Sometimes physicians should even lie to give hope.
Act utilitarianism would favor a person who is old but a rocket scientist than a young person who is young but has a disability because the older person has a lot more to offer the society than the young person with a disability. But the disabled child and old person has dignity. That is why you cannot say that they don’t have a right to live, they have a responsibility to the moral law.
Another definition of a right is that a right is what trumps something else. For example you have two claim, a right is one that trumps the other claim. For example saving the life of a younger person, because a younger person has more bidding right, they trump the right of the older person that requires the same kidney. Those a right depends on a person being able to claim it? The answer is no. for example children. We are obligated to care for them
What is a positive right?
A positive right is a right to receive a particular good or service from others, for example, a right to health care and a right to public health protective services
A negative right is a right to be free from some intervention by others, for example, a right of privacy and right to forgo a recommended surgical procedure. A person’s positive right entails another’s obligation to do something for the person while a negative right entails another’s obligation to refrain from doing something.
The positive right is like the Samaritan rule. Good Samaritan Rule is a doctrine of tort law rule, which gives protection to a person who comes to the aid of an injured or ill person, from being sued for contributory negligence as long as the volunteer aid-giver acted with reasonable care. In the good Samaritan rule, the Samaritan was beneficence not benevolence.
Benevolence means good will or good wishes it was born out of the term “do no harm”
Beneficence means the act to of doing good. Kant called benevolence the perfect virtue. Positive are more difficult to justify because you have to know what you are doing in order to act in a beneficence way.
Right and obligation
If you have rights, you have obligations but does obligation demand right. For example: obligation of generosity and love. Obligations to not create rights, it is the other way around. Right proceed obligations.
For a while many people believed that animals did not have any rights that why we hurt them, eat them etc and this was widely accepted until now. Can an animal claim a right upon us? We think of animal right because we believe that they have dignity so they should be respected. But animals cannot lay claim upon us.
In the case of the girl with the kidney problem, the father has the right not to donate his kidney and the daughter those not have the right to demand the kidney from him. The father decision is within his right as long as it those violate another’s right. The problem with right ethics is that it becomes an arm wrestle march. Like my right is stronger than your right even though I might be violating your rights. It tends to hurt other people. We are defined by our relationships, even though our right is good talk because it helps us understand what should always be protected but those not fully explain why those things are bidding upon us.
Virtue is the right action born out of the right motives. For Aristotle which is more important, correct actions or correct belief? Correct beliefs because if your actions are wrong but your beliefs are right than it is easier to correlate your actions to your belief and correct yourself.
Teleology of human right: the study of the end. Our purpose, what is your purpose in life and in virtue base ethics you have to know that. So what virtue ethics teach us is how to act in a way that fulfills one’s purpose. A virtue is never luck and it is not a gift. I cannot make you courageous. A one time act is not a virtuous act a habit is a virtuous act. Post con carry on- according to the context. If you are a virtuous person you need to learn how to act according to the context. You have to learn how to act virtuous without behaving excessive or deficient. For example if people where came and attack samford and I go and attack them without a plan, than I am behaving like a fool but if I run away I am acting like a coward.
Criticize utilitarianism because people get left out