Gewirth and Nagel
One difference between Alan Gewirth’s defense of absolutism and that offered by Thomas Nagel is that Nagel concedes that it can be wrong to fail to violate absolute prohibitions (or absolute rights) in order to prevent catastrophic consequences whereas Gewirth does not. Explain what you regard as the most important advantages and disadvantages of each author’s position. Which one has the more compelling defense of absolutism?
Rights delineate a space around individuals that must be respected. The study of rights is a struggle to understand how rights may be prioritized, and in what cases the interests of someone may overcome the rights of another. Gewirth and Nagel are both asking whether there are rights which may not be overridden, even in the case where it seems that overriding them would serve some greater common good. They call these rights ‘absolute.’
Gewirth is attempting to show that there are such rights, and that respecting them does not conflict with the rights of others. Nagel, on the other hand, believes that some situations require the violation of the rights of one or another, and argues that absolutism can provide important criteria attempts for determining how to evaluate claims in such events.
Gewirth’s conclusion rests upon a strict delineation of responsibility, so that a responsible actor can always be identified for a violation of rights, and other actors can always avoid violating another’s absolute right. This formulation appears to be too strong. It is also limited in that it requires the identification of an actor; there are situations in which it offers us no help in evaluating right action. But, while Gewirth’s formulation is problematic in practice, it is powerful in that it offers a coherent, consistent defense of absolute rights.
Nagel is not interested in justifying absolute rights, but in articulating actions that are prohibited. His belief is that the world is an imperfect place; that fear and human cruelty will always present difficult moral situations, and that therefore, establishing criteria to deal with these less than ideal situations is essential. He also argues, unlike Gewirth, that one can be confronted with two choices, both of whose outcomes are bad, and for both of which one bears responsibility. Thus, he asks, when both respecting and violating an absolute right are wrong, what is the morally right thing to do?
In 2001 China entered the WTO it has made major stride in the world economy especially with trade agreements with the biggest capitalist economy and the biggest GDP and most developed country in the world the United States of America which has nearly 2.3 trillion of exported goods and service in 2013 (President, n.d.) When China entered in the WTO it had become the sixth largest economy and the largest market trade and was slightly ahead of Italy and just behind France. “China is third largest trading partner with the U.S and its trade surplus with the U.S. has increased to $201 billion around 2005 and by 2014 the total China-U.S. trade deals was 591 billion”. (Morrison, 2015) It had a global current account of $160 billion around 2005 (Hufbauer, Wong, & Sheth, 2006). As of 2015 “China is the U. S’s second largest trading company and the third largest export company and its biggest source of import”. (Morrison, 2015) Sales from a foreign affiliated U.S. firms in China totaled at 364 billion by 2013. (Morrison, 2015). What is also amazing is that China has the biggest U.S. treasury bonds and that keeps U.S interest rate low. Between 2010 to 2014 General Motor sold more cars in the Chine’s market than in the U.S. market and many U.S. firms participate in Chinese market to stay globally competitive. (Morrison, 2015). This kind of
According to Hannah Arendt, “The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the eighteenth century was a turning point in history”. (Arendt, 290). She begins her thesis by making this affirmation. However, throughout her essay, she further develops the idea that this “Declaration of the Rights of Man” has been questioned ever since then, because of the fact that these human rights don’t really appear to be implemented over a numerous amount of human beings. This “turning point” which Arendt refers to, indicates that when human rights were first conceived, they stated that only the nation worked as the law, and neither the divine law nor anything else had power over them. This was the moment when control over these rights was lost, since there is a deficiency in the precision of who really has the rule of law over them, if not even the human authorities have been able to manage the “universality” they are supposed to express. Hannah Arendt’s explanation on the human rights article called “The
In his paper Nagel argues that rights are not merely self-evident and therefore do require some good arguments to ground them. He aims to establish that rights are justified by the status theory. We will come to see what he means by this later on. What primarily concerns Nagel is whether vastly different rights, for instance, one’s right to view and rent pornography and one’s freedom of association in political matters, can be connected in any meaningful way. His reply to this is that they can be. Before we go any further, I will mention that the types of rights discussed in his paper are in the form of negative rights. In understanding his overall view, Nagel wants the reader to think of rights as a kind of status, as mentioned earlier. Similar to other kinds of status like national citizenship, having rights is part of the membership in a type of community and in this case, it is a moral community. As such, and unlike legal or political status, rights have a normative base. That is to say, rights are not created but are instead recognized for each person. Further, its existence doesn’t depend on political and other types of institutional recognition or enforcement, rather it depends on moral argument alone. Of course there are institutions such as the United Nations that can enforce them when the need arises, but the establishment of rights do not depend on the practices of such institutions.
...ect results to the role of oxytocin and how this molecule can be labeled as the morality molecule. Other possibilities and explanations need to be researched to be ruled out to conclude and support the function of OT. There is a wealth of research that has been done over the past few years and many different scientist have introduced the idea that oxytocin is a moral molecule that make people more trustworthy and allows people to be morally right. With any research there is always negativity and scrutiny that comes along with it. Most of the research found supports that OT is in fact molecule and being injected with OT or having higher levels of OT can be linked to causing people to do morally and trustworthy things. I agree with the definitions provided, and the measures of research constructed, but still believe there are other explanations not properly explored.
College athletes should be paid! College athletes are often considered to be some of the luckiest students in the world. Most of them receiving all inclusive scholarships that cover all the costs of their education. They are also in a position to make a reputation for themselves in the sporting world preparing them for the next step. The ongoing debate whether student athletes should be paid has been going on for years. These athletes bring in millions of dollars for their respective schools and receive zero in return. Many will argue that they do receive payment, but in reality it is just not true. Costs associated with getting a college education will be discussed, information pertaining to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and benefits student athletes receive. First, I’ll start with costs associated with college and most of all why student athletes should be paid!
The argument that college athletes should be paid as been ongoing for many years. With the growing rise of college athletes’ popularity in the media, many people believe that college athletes should be paid, but they do not see the negative effects of the payments. The payments of college athletes could cause their price of enrollment to rise, forcing many students to transfer to other universities or not attend college at all. It may also cause fan ratings to drop because the relatability factor would disappear. Along with university budget cuts appearing, academic scholarships and athletic scholarships would disappear. College athletes should not be paid because college athletes are students and not professional players, the deep connection
College athletes are undoubtedly some of the hardest working people in the world. Not only are they living the life of an average student, they also have a strenuous schedule with their specific sport. One of the most discussed topics in the world of college athletics is whether or not student-athletes should be paid money for playing sports. The people who disagree with the idea have some good arguments to make. Primarily that the athletes get to go to school for free for playing sports. Another argument is that if student-athletes were to get paid then it would ruin the amateurism of college sports. People who are against paying the athletes do not want to see the young people become focused on money. “Paying student-athletes would dramatically shift their focus away from where it should be - gaining knowledge and skills for life after college” (Lewis and Williams). This is very understandable because one of the biggest reasons college sports are so popular is because the athletes play for school pride and for bragging rights. They play because they enjoy the game, not because it is their job. Most people that disagree with the idea of paying the athletes fail to realize what really goes on behind the scenes. At most Universities around the country the bulk of the income the school receives is brought in through the athletic programs. In fact the football and basketball teams usually bring in enough money to completely pay for the rest of the athletic programs all together. To get a better understanding of how much has changed in the world of college sports a little history must be learned.
Today there are a lot of big questions in this world about one specific topic. The answer is even more important than maybe half of the questions, but there isn’t a correct answer to this question. It’s a belief and what you think question. This question is paid attention to by a lot of high school student athletes, but not only high school athletes but current college athletes. This question is maybe one of the reasons why a lot of college athletes leave college and go to the pros after just one year in college. The question is “should college athletes get paid?” A lot of people reading this right now have different opinions and views on this, and the question itself just pops. Well first I think college athletes getting paid would benefit them for the future and keep their head on the right track. Secondly we also have to think about a student athlete’s schedule. We still have to remember that they have to have money in their pockets and do things for themselves, but without money or time for a job how is this possible? It also puts them in a bad situation to start doing illegal things. Last but not least this doesn’t make them equal to the non-student athletes, because the people who don’t play sports have time to have a job and work for what they want. No one can give them a dime from the administration, but everyone at the campus has huge expectations from them, including the people they can’t even get a penny from. To me College athletes getting paid would help the athletes and make their college life easier.
Every day, people are denied basic necessary human rights. One well known event that striped millions of these rights was the Holocaust, recounted in Elie Wiesel’s memoir, Night. As a result of the atrocities that occur all around the world, organizations have published declarations such as the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. It is vital that the entitlement to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, freedom of thought and religion, and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of themselves be guaranteed to everyone, as these three rights are crucial to the survival of all people and their identity.
In recent years, the argument about whether or not to pay athletes playing at the college level has become a matter of national debate. Currently, the ruling is that college athletes cannot be paid. This is a stance that should be maintained. Paying athletes to compete at the collegiate level is unfeasible because it would cost colleges too much, influence student’s educational decisions and create an unfair financial atmosphere between athletes and non-athletes.
However, the impact it has made on China can be considered to be great as it brought China under the limelight in the global economy. Globalization has had many positive and negative ramifications on the Chinese economy. In the short run, it may be so that the negative impacts outweigh the positive impacts, but that is easily debatable. This is because all the negative impacts of globalization can be corrected with economic policies that can be efficiently undertaken by the Chinese government. In this manner, China in overall will be able to enjoy all the benefits of globalization and contribute more to the rest of the world as it continues to grow economically and socially. In today’s world, globalization is an important part of the development and prosperity of each nation and China too should be able to reap from its benefits. Today, as China proudly holds a place in the global economy as the world’s second largest economy and most populated country in the world, it can be said
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
To rectify these issues of construed morality, Nagel explores a few options. Nagel states that 'If one of them takes on a public role, he/she accepts certain obligations, certain restrictions, and certain limitations on what he/she accepts' This statement incurs that public officials have distinct authority over the public which maybe construed by personal interests. A plausible theory is to prevent impersonal forces created by institutions. The next option recognizes the discontinuity between individual mortality and public mortality, which will provide either an addition or restriction within varying institutions. Nagel indicated that in his own opinion is that morality should be based on acceptability to each individual responsible for the actions and not hold the whole institution or all parties liable.
For over a decade, China’s economy has experienced some dynamic changes, especially with the transformation of their labor market. China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 was a significant event because it symbolized to the global community their country was a competitive trading par...
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.