Joel Feinberg:  The Nature and Value of Rights

 

Name of the Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Library Reference: N/A

Amazon Link:    

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=

contemporary+moral+problems&x=0&y=0

 

Quote:

“In sense yes and in a sense no”

 

Learning Expectations:

 

1.       To know the nature and Value of rights

2.       To know what is Nowheresville and where is it.

3.       To know the importance of rights based on the view of the author.

4.       To know what is doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties.

5.       To know what is sovereign right monopoly

 

Review:

 

            According to this chapter doctrine of correlatively of rights and duties is the doctrine that states that all duties entails other people’s right and all rights entails other people’s duties. Only the first part of the doctrine, the alleged entailment from duties to rights need concern us here. “In sense yes and in a sense no” etymologically the word duty is associated with actions that are due to someone else.

Nowheresville is a place where no one has the right and no one is treated equally which we can say different from what our place right now in which rights are considered and rights are given equally to all. This is the place that needs to know rights and implements right equally as well.

According to this chapter Feinberg states or explains that the concept of personal desert is a moral notion concerned with, as Feinberg puts it, a certain “kind of fittingness between one party’s character or action and another party’s … respond”.  If, on the one hand, I go beyond the call of duty in doing something for you, then I deserve to be praised or rewarded in the sense that it is morally fitting that you praise or reward me.  If, on the other, I violate some sort of obligation, then I deserve to be blamed or even punished in the sense that it is morally fitting that I be blamed or punished.

And so personal desert will work only to Nowheresville if this place will going to practice the importance of rights to people morally and equally

The sovereign to be sure had a certain duty to treat his subjects as well, but this duty was owed not to the subject directly, but to god just as wee might have a duty to a person to treat his property well, but of course no duty to the property itself but only to its owner. Thus, while the sovereign was quite capable of harming his subjects, he could commit no wrong against them that they could complain about, since they had no prior claims against his conduct. Genuine sovereign monopoly they will do al those things too, and thus incur genuine obligations will not be owed directly to promise creditors, parents, and the like but rather to god alone, or to the members of some elite or to a single sovereign under god.

            I think this will work in way that this will be implemented that all are treated well and equal.

 

Learning’s/Insights:

 

·         Doctrine of correlatively of rights and duties is the doctrine that states that all duties entails other people’s right and all rights entails other people’s duties

·         Of personal desert is a moral notion concerned with, as Feinberg puts it, a certain “kind of fittingness between one party’s character or action and another party’s … respond”.

·         Rights are morally important.

Integrative Questions:

 

1.       What is personal desert?

2.       What is Sovereignty and sovereign right monopoly?

3.       What is and where is Nowheresville?

4.       What is doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties?

5.       What is claim-rights?

 

Review Questions:

 

1. Describe Nowheresville. How this world different from our world?

 

Nowheresville is a place where no one has the right and no one is treated equally which we can say different from what our place right now in which rights are considered and rights are given equally to all. This is the place that needs to know rights and implements right equally as well.

 

2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinberg’s position on this doctrine?

           

            According to this chapter doctrine of correlatively of rights and duties is the doctrine that states that all duties entails other people’s right and all rights entails other people’s duties. Only the first part of the doctrine, the alleged entailment from duties to rights need concern us here. “In sense yes and in a sense no”  etymologically the word duty is associated with actions that are due to someone else.

 

3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville?

 

According to this chapter Feinberg states or explains that the concept of personal desert is a moral notion concerned with, as Feinberg puts it, a certain “kind of fittingness between one party’s character or action and another party’s … respond”.  If, on the one hand, I go beyond the call of duty in doing something for you, then I deserve to be praised or rewarded in the sense that it is morally fitting that you praise or reward me.  If, on the other, I violate some sort of obligation, then I deserve to be blamed or even punished in the sense that it is morally fitting that I be blamed or punished.

And so personal desert will work only to Nowheresville if this place will going to practice the importance of rights to people morally and equally

 

Reference: http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:G2LE6trVSpoJ:home.myuw.net/himma/phil338/lect1.htm+Feinberg+personal+desert&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ph&client=firefox-a

 

4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg?

 

The sovereign to be sure had a certain duty to treat his subjects as well, but this duty was owed not to the subject directly, but to god just as wee might have a duty to a person to treat his property well, but of course no duty to the property itself but only to its owner. Thus, while the sovereign was quite capable of harming his subjects, he could commit no wrong against them that they could complain about, since they had no prior claims against his conduct. Genuine sovereign monopoly they will do al those things too, and thus incur genuine obligations will not be owed directly to promise creditors, parents, and the like but rather to god alone, or to the members of some elite or to a single sovereign under god.

            I think this will work in way that this will be implemented that all are treated well and equal.

5. What are claim rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important?

 

Of course yes, because all have the rights, the chance to claim their rights because it is not just personally important but morally important as well.

 

Discussion Questions:

 

1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not?

 

Yes. Because based on his views he really states the importance of having a right to an individual.

 

2. Can you give a noncircular definition of claim-right?

 

I don’t think I have enough knowledge to think of a definite definition for this one.