Two Ideas of Rights in Correspondance to Two Principles of Morality

Meeting 1

Nanhee Byrnes Office hours MW: 0950-1050 at HSS7055

Content

1. Queen Vs. Dudley and Stephens2. The defense and plaintiff arguments3. Two moral principles: utilitarianism and

deontology.4. Two conceptions of rights

July 5

May 19 1884

Queen Vs. Dudley and Stephens

Richard Parker

Ned BrooksTom Dudley

Edwin Stephens

The development of the events

• July 5: escaped into the life boat• July 25: killed Parker• July 29: being rescued by a German ship• Sept sometime: being dropped at a British port,

Dudley recounted the ordeal, including killing Parker. The British people were sympathetic with Dudley. But not the British authority.

Thus, the trial!

Whether killing Parker is morally justified for others to survive?

The defense argument: argument by necessity

• Extreme circumstances• Last resort• Greater good (3>0)

The plaintiff argument: against necessity

• Was it necessary?• Even if necessary, who should be sacrificed?– Sacrifice yourself instead of sacrificing others.– There is no duty to preserve one’s own life. – Who measures the value of another person’s life?

• What kind of society would come about if killing out of necessity is morally justified?

Conflicting outcomes of the trial

• Official verdict: the defendants were convicted of murder. – a murder conviction implies that it is improper to

abridge Parker's right to life, even though violating his right was necessary to maximize the number of lives preserved.

• The reality: Dudley and Stephens were pardoned by the Queen, and released after 6 months in jail.

The philosophical significance of conflicting endings

The conflicting endings show that two irreconcilable principles of morality are present in the reasoning of the authorities.

They are the utilitarian principle (consequentialism) and the deontic principle (the sense of duty).

Two Principles of morality

• Deontic morality (deontology) The morally right thing to do is to follow the the

universal law (categorical imperative or the good will, to Kant ).

• Utilitarian principle (consequentialism) The morally right thing to do is to bring about the

most good (intrinsically valuable outcomes)

The father of deontic morality: Kant

Kant

Kant

Kant

Deontic morality: summary

• Reason alone can discover moral rules, and motivate moral action.

• The rights and duties, discovered by reason, are absolute.

• All human beings have Intrinsic moral value thanks to the reasoning capacity.

• As bundles of rights, individuals are autonomous.

Problems with deontic morality

• Reason cannot discover moral rules, and cannot motivate moral action.

• Following the moral principle can lead to bad outcome.

• A person as a bundle of rights needs to be proven. E.g., the life of state-less people.

The father of utilitarianism

Bentham’s quantifiable pleasure

The mother of utilitarianism

Mill’s qualitative pleasure

Utilitarian morality: summary

• The principle is constructed from the basic nature of all alive things: pursue pleasure and avoid pain.

• Only hapiness can be desired in and of itself.• Morally right thing to do is to maximize

happiness of all concerned.• Consequence is the only judge of morality. A

question like who did it, or why one did it, or how one did it is morally irrelevant.

Problems with utilitarian principle

• Demandingness (too much and too little)• Lack of autonomy • Asking a question like who did it, or why one

did it, or how one did it, seems to be morally irrelevant.

Moral principles and rights

Deontic morality: rights are viewed as indefeasible, morally fundamental entities that protect individual autonomy. The function of a right is to give its holder control over another's duty.

utilitarian morality: rights are viewed as fundamental interests. The function of a right is to further the right-holder's interests.

Rights and the role of governmentDeontic theorists:

Utilitarian theorists:

Governing Goal

M a x

Intrinsic

For Wednesday Meeting

The moral status of the so-called democratic rights: the personal right to vote and the majority’s right to make binding decisions.