Gewirth

At the beggining of his essay, Gewirth takes into account that there are many disputes regarding the absolutism of rights, and he addresses the arguements. The right to life is one of the most important and studies ones. Gewirth claims that "A right is absolute when it cannot be overriden in any circumstances, so that it can never be justifiably infinged and it must be fulfilled without any exceptions." (92).

After showing the example of the son's torture of his mother, he claims that the only right that is absoulte is one that protects innocent persons from being made into intended victims of a homicidial project. Although I do understand how he came to this conclusion, I am confused about this being the only right. Did I perhaps just misread or skip over another one?

Further, I do not understand why does this right have to be so specific to be absolute. Is that what gives it the possibility to have that trait? Would a general right be more easily broken, therefore, not have the possiblity of absolutism?

On page 102, Gewirth uses Abram's example to explain the importance of intention. He says that "When Abrams refrains from torturing his mother to death, he does not directly intend the many ensuing deaths...Hence he is not morally responsible for those deaths." I am understanding intent as a condition for absolute rights. Although those innocent people died, since Abrams intent was not to kill them he is not responsible. The guilt falls on the terrorists that had intervening action.