Uncategorized
The idea is roughly this: you would have the moral rules, which could be considered the broader framework, and then you would have the laws of the state, which are more specific and cover only a subset of what morality covers. So one could imagine the field of ethics as a circle and the laws of the state as a smaller circle lying entirely in the other circle. Unlike absolute rights, rights whose claims can be balanced by moral considerations are called prima facie rights – from the Latin “at first sight”. Most rights are prima facie. For example, the right to travel freely, the right to own property, the right to drive, the right to be served afterwards (if you`ve been standing in line) are all rights that can rightly be overridden in certain circumstances. Of course, circumstances that might give rise to a kind of prima facie right may be common to a kind of prima facie right, but may be rare in others. To say that a right is prima facie and not absolute means that there may be other considerations that outweigh the right in a particular case. If the claim of a right is not fulfilled, it is customary to say that the claim (and the right) is violated. For example, if A refuses to hand over B`s car keys to B because B is too drunk to drive or is under the influence of drugs that seriously impair his ability to drive, B`s driver`s licence has been violated. When a moral injustice is committed by violating a right (i.e. when there are insufficient moral grounds to violate the law), it is said to be violated.
If A refuses to hand over B`s car keys simply because A is in an awkward mood, A has violated B`s right to use his property. Morally binding actions are morally just actions that should be done, it is morally forbidden not to do them, they are moral duties, they are actions that are required. Such actions could include keeping one`s promises and providing guidance and support to one`s own children. It is important to distinguish between different categories of rights in order to understand whether there is moral injustice when the right to a right is not realized. Legal but immoral acts are also common. For example, it is legal to look for tax loopholes and try to trick the system to reduce taxes. This can go as far as companies move their international headquarters to unlikely locations like some Caribbean islands or Ireland just to avoid paying regular taxes in their actual home (and business) country. While such behavior is legal, it is clearly immoral. A company that makes billions of dollars from consumers in a given country has a moral obligation to pay taxes in that country, thereby contributing to that country`s social security systems, public infrastructure, health care, schools, etc. Escaping this responsibility, even if it is legal, is not morally just.
Ultimately, we are all called as individuals to decide what we consider morally right and wrong. It`s part of what makes us human that we can`t give up that decision and let others decide for us. Each of us must decide for ourselves what actions we want to consider morally good or bad, even if it is contrary to the laws of the state. For example, you have to obey a law that says, “Don`t kill,” because murder is wrong in the first place; Making it a law does not make it particularly morally reprehensible. Morally neutral actions are morally just activities that are permissible but not mandatory. We are neither obliged nor forbidden to do so. It could be called “purely morally permissible.” Examples of such actions include watching the evening news on TV, eating an apple instead of an orange, choosing vanilla over chocolate, whistling while working, chewing your food thoroughly before swallowing, brushing your teeth before flossing rather than after, etc. Remember what makes a claim a moral right: If there is a moral justification for a claim, then that person has a moral right.
From this definition, we see that for a person to have a moral right, all that is needed is that the person`s claim is morally justified. We want to catch the bad guys and promote justice. But how can this happen if we don`t denounce immoral behavior, even if it`s legal? Perhaps our willingness to give people carte blanche when they do bad things, even if they are legal, undermines the likelihood that people will follow the rules, let alone the spirit of the rule. The ethical approach says that the consequences are important, but they are not the only thing. The “path” to consequences must also be taken into account; Some types of actions are simply bad, whether or not they bring the most happiness overall. For example, if I made a lot of people happy by murdering an innocent person, it doesn`t make things right – murder would always be bad, so I shouldn`t do it. What types of actions are good or bad because of the path to consequences? Opinions differ, but there are certain principles or rules that tell us what types of actions are good or bad. What species, if any, would be ethically acceptable to use in such experiments? Is it morally relevant whether they are mammals? Would the intelligence be morally relevant to the decision, and if so, how? Would the presence or absence of a complex social system in which members care for other members of the species be a morally relevant factor to consider? Would it be morally relevant for one candidate species to have a more human face than another? Would it be relevant that some people in particular were once human pets? If so, would it be better or worse to use these people? It would be interesting to hear Professor Finance`s views on the various issues arising from the SEC`s relationship with investment banks since the 2008-2009 debacle. At this point, it seems that the law itself is quite “fickle” when it comes to determining when an act is illegal. The Abacus case illustrates that what is considered legal is “transactional” while showing that what is ethical is not even worth considering by the perpetrators of multifaceted misconduct. Many of those who want to attribute rights to nonhuman animals claim that their well-being is important in itself, not just because their well-being contributes to human well-being.
When the welfare of a creature is to be considered for its own sake, it is said to have a moral status. To say that a group of beings has moral status does not determine whether they have the same moral status as humans and therefore have “human rights”, but only that the well-being of these beings must be considered for its own sake. The well-being of these beings could be considered simply because it benefits some people, but this would not require that they be given a moral rank. What are the relevant considerations in determining whether it is morally justifiable to conduct animal experiments? The first consideration is what happens to the animal – whether it interferes, kills or causes pain. Moreover, it depends on whether the obligation not to inflict severe pain on animals if one`s own welfare is not promoted is an absolute obligation or only prima facie. If it is prima facie, the justification would depend on the relative strength of the comparisons that matter for measures that would cause pain, for example, the benefits to humans from an action that would inflict pain on the animal. The United States in the late twentieth century is sometimes described as a “culture of rights,” as opposed to Japan, which is sometimes described as a “culture of duty.” However, when individuals and groups representing a range of political and religious views seek to formulate basic moral demands that apply in various cultural contexts, such as the United Nations, they often formulate those moral demands in relation to human rights. Therefore, the concepts of rights and human rights are widely used today, although the concept of rights emerged only in the seventeenth century in relatively individualistic societies.