Posts
In this article Hart is arguing that if we have any rights at all it is the equal right to freedom. This argument hinges on the understanding that all other rights and obligations which are asserted are used as justification to limit an individuals freedom. He explains this in showing that rights are invoked in 2 ways either; to assert that no one has justification for stopping an individual for acting in a specific way, or to assert that someone behave in a certain way.
Hart chooses in this article to not address the concept of moral value of actions but instead to examine the concept of what he calls our special rights. These special rights are rights that are asserted because we have freely bound ourselves to something by virtue of some deal with another individual. These types of rights range from simple promise keeping, to agreeing to take care of the other person's grandmother, or an agree among a group that they each have a right to say what they want. In this capacity these rights can be looked at as special rights(and in some cases basic rights maybe)which means that what is binding the individuals freedom is his freely given consent to behave/allow others to behave in a specific manner. What Hart finds important to clarify here is that just because one benefits from anothers obligation in a special right does not mean she is the right holder. The right holder is only the one that made the deal with the one who has the obligation. He does not in this article try and address the ethical nature of any act which someone may be bound to, but this does not mean it doesn't concern him. He states that one may find that he is morally bound to do X but X is also found to be a bad act. In this case you simply choose the best option of the two.
To clarify where he gets his stance that promise keeping is a right: I dont think he is really asserting that it or anything other than our equal freedom is a right. He is saying that if we believe in any rights other than the equal right to freedom then we must also at least believe that we all have an equal right to freedom. This is because any other right that we may believe is a right that is used to justify the limitation of an individuals freedom. By needing to justify the limitation we are showing that it must be a right. He is not making any claim here that these other rights he talks about are in fact rights. At least I think that is what he is saying.
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
I think you unpacked this nicely Cameron, I took out the same basic idea that we have but one natural right, the right to be free and how all other supposed rights are subject to this fundamental right and are dependent upon another person's involvment. There was one concern that I had which Hart brings up and does not adequetly answer (or at least I didn't take away). "So it appears absurd to speak of having duties or owing obligations to ourselves-of course we may have 'duties' not to do harm to ourselves, but what could be meant by insisting that we have duties or obligations to ourselves not to do harm to ourselves?" (pg82). What this question gets at is that here there is only the individual. So, I ask, what if someone wanted to kill themself, an act which in most states I believe is against the law, should we consent to everyone having the freedom to "off" themselves since it involves only the individual?
ReplyDelete