Principles in Gewirth

Principles in Gewirth

There were of couple of principles mention in the Gewirth’s essay that I hope we can discuss further in class. These principles sparked an interest in me as being important to understand. Please feel free to question my interpretation of these principles.

First of all, Gewirth, and what Erma already pointed out, points out his definition of an absolute right on page 92, “A right is absolute when it cannot be overridden in any circumstances, so that it can never be justifiably infringed and it must be fulfilled without any exceptions.” At the same time, Gewirth has argues that there are circumstance where rights have to overridden for a relative standard, either for the sake of the well being the one person or many persons. To come to this conclusion, he uses Abram’s situation.
Aside from this point, Gewirth mentions about 5 principles to discuss further about our rights.
· Principle of Generic Consistency
· Principle Absolutism
· Individual Absolutism
· Rule Absolutism
· Principle of the Intervening Action

In a sense, I see that the Principle of Generic Consistency is no different from Kant’s theory that states, “One must act of that in which could be universal law” (or something very close to that).
Page 93 defines PGC: “this principle of every agent that he act in accord with the generic rights of his recipient as well as of himself.” This principle could be the closest reason to believe that we do have absolute rights, which are rights that we, as human beings want and must applies and consider that people want to. In additional, the PGC, and other theories such as the Golden Rule, Kant’s theory, and Principle of Utility, falls under the category of Principle Absolution, which according this: “what is absolute, and thus always valid and never overridden, is only some moral principle of a very high degree of generality which, referring to the subject, the respondents, and especially the object of rights in a relatively undifferentiated way (94).”

Individual Absolutism suggest that a individual has a absolute right to something in a particular place and time “when all grounds for overriding the right in the particular case has been overcome” (94). This principle is a little confuse, however, I think it suggest that a person can overriding anyone else right to something when it is necessary to in a situation, such as Abram’s situation. Where Abram had to violate his mother's right not to be torture. While, the Rule Absolutism principle suggest something neutral than what both Principle and individual Absolution suggests. To my understand, this principle suggest that a absolute right is define after considering the circumstance and the individual involve, which therefore must act upon either through a Principle Absolute perceptive or a utilitarianism perceptive.

Lastly, the principle of the intervening action is interesting theory that caught my attention. The principle suggest, to me, that violations of someone’s right does, not always and only, rely upon one person, by upon the third party, which is involve and committing the violation itself. The terrorist in Abram’s story are the perfect example. I don’t think it is fair to that someone violate someone else’s rights, at the same time, hand down or force someone else to handle the responsibility of fulfilling the duty of the person’s rights that has been violated. Then, again anyone’s right to life means that we have a duty not to take it and/or prevent the person from being taken. By this standard, we must do what is necessary to preserve someone’s life. However, it is absurd to have this responsibility when someone else is violating a person’s right to life and expect to give the responsibility to someone else. In to what account does the third party, who commit the violation of right, not responsible for his/her action?!