The Independence of Right from Ethics Allen Wood Right and ethics ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Kant thinks that duties of right do not require an assignable individual to whom the duty isowed. He holds that rebellion against a tyrant, does no wrong to him -- since by the injustice ofhis rule he has forfeited the claim not to be overthrown -- but it violates the right, by replacing alaw-governed civil society (albeit an imperfect one) with rule by mere force (EF 8:382). Helikewise thinks that it is wrong to make a lying declaration – a statement made in a contextrequiring truthfulness as a duty of right -- even to someone whose misconduct has forfeited anyright to be told the truth (this is the issue separating Kant from Constant in Kant’s late essay onthe right to lie) (VRL 8:426).Conversely, Kant thinks a person’s right can be violated even if there is no assignableindividual who has violated it. Thus if the violation of my right by a particular person can becalled ‘particular injustice’, there can also be a ‘general injustice’ involving a violation of myright, where no assignable individual has wronged me. For instance, a series of economictransactions, none of which in particular involves a violation of anyone’s right, can result insomeone’s being in a position in which they are deprived of what is rightfully theirs, and in sucha case, it is the responsibility of a law-governed civil society to make arrangements to rectify thegeneral injustice.“One can participate in a general injustice, even if one does no injustice according tolaws and institutions. Now if one shows beneficence to a wretch, then one has notgiven anything to him gratuitously, but has only given what one earlier helped to takefrom him through the general injustice. For if no one took more of the goods of lifethan another, there would be no rich and no poor” (VE 27:416).The wealthy, Kant thinks, are the beneficiaries of such injustice, and should be made to payin order to rectify it. When the government fails to require them to do this, what such peopleconsider beneficence does not really deserve that name:20
“Having the resources to practice such beneficence as depends on the goods offortune is, for the most part, a result of certain human beings being favored throughthe injustice of the government, which introduces an inequality of wealth that makesothers need their beneficence. Under such circumstances, does a rich man’s help tothe needy, on which he so readily prides himself as something meritorious, reallydeserve to be called beneficence at all? (MS 6:454).There can be no protection of rightful freedom, Kant holds, without a state authoritycapable of acting in the name of all, and capable of rectifying general injustice as well asparticular injustice. A person cannot be free – their choices independent of wrongful constraintby the ends of others – unless they have a mode of life capable of sustaining that independence.Welfare or happiness, for Kant, is an ethical value, with which right has nothing to do. Peopleshould set the happiness of others as an end on ethical grounds, but may not be coerced topromote this end. But rightful freedom is the right of all; it belongs no more to the wealthy andpowerful than to anyone else, and the possession of wealth and power give no one the privilegeof taking it away from others. When the social or economic system has such a result, it commitsa general injustice, which it is the responsibility of civil society to rectify.Article 25 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himselfand of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary socialservices, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood,old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”These are rights whose existence is often denied by libertarians, and often represented bylibertarians and utilitarians alike under the heading of “welfare.” However, these rights seem tome best justified, as they are by a Kantian theory of right, as necessary conditions of personalfreedom and independence. Their violation may sometimes take place through particular21
Page 3 and 4: imperative of duty, then Kant seems
Page 5 and 6: applies to action prudentially: Pra
Page 7 and 8: themselves -- such as gods, or robo
Page 9 and 10: 6:231). “Right and authorization
Page 11 and 12: do not help them, then they (probab
Page 13 and 14: Coercion is never justified in the
Page 15 and 16: standards of right, be coercively p
Page 17 and 18: In other words, either duties of ri
Page 19: the less rich and less powerful. If
Page 23: “In our present condition, when g

The Independence of Right from Ethics Allen Wood Right and ethics ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?