Introduction:
This paper will accomplish two tasks. First, it will briefly outline the main points of Thomas Nagel’s argument in “Personal Rights and Public Space”. Secondly, it will examine and discuss the portion of his argument that I find to be the most problematic.
1. 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.
According to Nagel, rights can be justified either instrumen...
... middle of paper ...
... For example, one right a may be able to override another right b at the individual level of rights; your right to enjoy doing z or your right not to be interfered with your enjoyment of z is “trumped” by my personal property rights to z. But one might ask: can’t rights be suspended or restricted? For instance, is it not permissible to use the death penalty or to restrict a person’s liberty when they have committed a crime? There may be other, perhaps utilitarian reasons to allow these things, but it doesn’t follow that these acts are morally justified at the same time.
Conclusion:
This paper briefly looked at the structure of Nagel’s overall argument and then outlined and analyzed the part of his argument where it seems inconsistent.
Works Cited
Thomas Nagel. “Personal Rights and Public Space.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 24, no.2 (1995): 83-107.
After the initial remarks, the author presents the four myths by setting out the works of several scholars. Marks identifies the first myth as “The Myth of Presumptive Universality”. She presents Joseph Raz’s views that we have human rights not because we are human, but because those rights simply exist. Raz also claims that the rights that we have adopted are biased and do not respect the cultural diversity of the world. The scholar claims that if rights were truly universal then we should’ve had a higher
Feinberg, J. “ The Nature and Value of Rights.” Journal of Value Inquiry 4(1970): 243
In my opinion, Nagel's opinion regarding moral structure in war is a little too narrow-minded. When relating actions in war to absolutist restrictions expressed by Nagel, it is easy to identify many controversies within our moral paradigm. Such positions would not hold ground in issues like the middle-eastern conflict because, with constant attacks from both sides, it is very difficult to assess the right and the wrong by simply evaluating one particular action that country has taken in war. In this particular case, I believe that an assassination and air strike are clear actions for the overall good, however by absolutist terms, Nagel would have a difficult time seeing this counterattack as morally justifiable.
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 this essay, I will explain and then evaluate Thomas Nagel’s deprivation account of death. I will explain Nagel’s considerations in regards to whether or not death is bad for the person who is dead, and the reasons for which he defends his claims. I will then go on to outline whether or not I believe Nagel’s claims are successful in light of the objections he attempts to refute.
Before we get to the three main points of view of different people around the world, let first explain what the example in the book is, and how it is relate to the Mind-Body problem. Nagel explains that for a fact we know that the brain and the body are connected by
Nagel is a profound philosopher, who defends a customary view of science a way to gain knowledge of the world. In the argument, Nagel makes it clear that there is good reason to believe that God doesn’t exist, however, he does make it clear that his views make fall along the lines of Buddhism. Nagel claims that he his questioning the theological proposition to believe in God. Nagel has given two points in proving that God does not exist. The first point goes along the lines that of that God exist, however, they don’t have a good reason to believe in God but they also have no good reason to not believe in God. Or we cannot truly understand the concept of God exist because according to Nagel its nonsense- although, we understand it as an expression
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
The issues discussed by Thomas Nagel in 'Ruthlessness in Public Life' are that continuities and discontinuities exist between the public and private morality. Public officials need to recognize that there are clear limitations on actions which conflict with morality concerns. Nagel explored how public and private sectors need to adhere to certain ordinary moral standards.
Mill’s convincing argument explains the context that natural rights are nonsense when they do not have legal protection and the hierarchal morality innately exists in mankind. Together Mill accounts for the legal and morality of natural rights.
He emphasizes that such principle is prior to any calculations of the possible outcomes that may occur if the rule is broken.(136) In other words, it is morally wrong to break the rule no matter how good the consequences will be. He then presents the principle in the form of how countries should act in a war: aggression that are directed toward someone can only be justified by something about that person that merits not only the aggression itself but also the type of aggression being used. Without the justification of something about that person, the aggression then will lose the characteristic of personal interaction, which is one of the essential qualities that a war has, and, as Nagel mentioned, will become “purely bureaucratic
Sweet, William (2003). Philosophical theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. University of Ottawa Press. p. 4.
Indeed, human right is never just a legal matter as it also involves moral principles to justify its inalienable and non-transferable status. UDHR preamble states that human right is the “recognition of the inherent dignity”. That means we are entitled to human rights because we have inherent values to be pursued and realized. Human rights are originated in ourselves, but not conferred by law or others. If a society does not recognize those aforementioned justifications, human rights would be unsupported and a...
Humanity has long debated the concept of rights, as well as the role those rights play
Simmons, A. John (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 127.