*****************************************************************************
* Notes compiled by Michael Huth, based on a lecture on Rights given by Kai *
* Draper on February 21, 2000 *
*****************************************************************************
I. The concept of a right
-------------------------
* rights are entitlements
* right-holders have authority
* rights and OBLIGATIONS are correlative
X has a right against Y == Y is under an obligation to X to do s.th.
* rights can be, among other things, ABSOLUTE or DEFEASIBLE
* NATURAL vs. ACQUIRED (special) rights
natural rights are possessed in "a state of nature", that is to say,
in a setting without any established social structure
an example of an acquired right is the right to paint Kai's fence
after you and he entered a voluntary agreement on that
* NEGATIVE vs. POSITIVE rights
contractual law, e.g., may implement acquired, positive rights derived
from a given contract; for example, the right to a specified yearly
salary, etc
U.S. law mostly construes the right to life as a negative one
II. Overview of Locke's moral system
------------------------------------
* well-being has value
* all persons are equal
equal rights --> Human Rights
well-being of everyone is equally important (in contrast to reasoning
given within a Feudal system)
* three fundamental rights (which are natural, absolute, and negative ones)
Right to one's own body and mind; including a right to life, a right
not to be harmed
Right to liberty
Right to the product of one's LABOR (more specific: mental and
physical activity)
* Rights can be lost or eroded by being
(1) relinquished,
(2) transfered, or
(3) forfeited
For example,
(1) If I agree to paint your fence on Monday morning, then I relinquish
my right to liberty (at least partially) for that morning.
(2) In a contractual situation, I may transfer my rights to ownership
to some other party (licensing schemes, last will, etc)
(3) If you violate s.b.'s rights, then you forfeit all your rights
that are lesser or comparable to the ones you violated. Although
it is problematic to make this more precise, it does allow the
development of a Theory of Punishment.
III. Locke's arguments for the existence of his three fundamental rights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------ Right of self-ownership ------------
| | |
| | |
v v v
Right to life Right not to be Right to liberty
injured |
|
V
Right to the product of
one's labor
* all of these rights are limited by the rights of others;
e.g. my right to the liberty of killing s.b. is limited
by that person's right to life
* other limitations:
(1) Restriction of use
e.g. if I grow apples, I have a right to owning them only if I USE
them; so I may lose that right, if I let them rot.
However, "money does not spoil!"
Questions: What would Locke say about knowledge that is not being
used? (e.g. if oil companies buy rights/patents for
alternative car-engine technology)
(2) Lockean proviso
"Enough and as good must be left for others."
e.g. if I draw a bucket of water from the river, I then own that
water and may use it to quench the thirst of my children; but only
if my taking this water leaves sufficient water, and of similar
quality (=drinkable) for others (e.g. the Jordan river!!)
this proviso may be used as a "political justification" for
political reform or revolution (Locke must have seen that
issue in his days, but tried to avoid it)
* Locke makes the Right of self-ownership the most fundamental one.
He gives various justifications for it. E.g. one argument is grounded
in theology, another one is a "welfare argument".
* The other three fundamental rights then follow from the former one based
on the notion of
Property rights to an object Obj:
- power of use = the right to touch, manipulate, alter, move, and
make use of Obj
- power of exclusion = the right to exclude others from access to Obj
Question: Can you explain how the three rights above now "follow" from
the Right of self-ownership, thinking of this as a Property
right?
* The Right to the product of one's own labor can be deduced from the Right to
liberty:
The "mixing argument":
(1) I own myself.
(2) Thus, I own my labor.
(3) Therefore, if I mix my labor with UNKNOWN RESOURCES, then I own the
mixture.
This is a TERRIBLE argument. For example, if I produce a jar of
tomato juice through laboring in my garden, I own that tomato
juice, by (2) and (1). Now I go to the beach and throw the tomato
juice into the Pacific Ocean, an unknown resource. By (3), I then
own the mixture of the Ocean with the juice, whose molecules will
spread throughout the sea.
Here is a better argument (based on John Simmons' work):
(1) I own myself.
(2) Thus, I have a right to make use of my body and mind, by (1).
(3) One way to make use of my body and mind is to engage in
productive labor and to make use of the product.
(4) Hence, I have a right to make use of the product of my labor,
by (2) and (3).
* The Right to the product of one's own labor can be justified INDEPENDENTLY
from the Right to liberty. Having such a right
- encourages people to work and prosper
- is justified as people DESERVE the reward of their labor
- is justified by a "parasites argument"
Copyright 2001 Michael Huth (huth@cis.ksu.edu).