Philosopher Joel Feinberg Calls 2 Part Responses

By /

Philosopher Joel Feinberg Calls 2 Part Responses

RESPOND TO BOTH PARTS FOR BOTH STUDENTS/100 words or more Per response to classmate. You can cite anything from Burnor, Richard and Yvonne Raley. Ethical Choices. New York: Oxford University, 2011. Print. ALSO for each students PART 2, this is the question they are answering just to give you better insight. In this week’s module we saw that the notion of liberty rights evolved out of medieval scholars’ reinterpretation of Roman law on the various forms of relation one can bear to property. The notion of a right that was developed was one that asserted an area of control over one’s life and was likened to the strongest form of property ownership recognized in Roman law. Do you believe you are related to yourself as to property? What are the implications of this view? In this week’s AVP, you were asked the question ‘Do you think that you can use natural law to argue against the legitimacy of slavery? Why or why not?’ Provide your answer to that question here.

  • Build the discussion by posting thoughtful and substantive, interactive responses of 100 words or more to your classmates’ posts.
  • Interaction should include constructive criticism (positive and negative) offered in a supportive, collegial spirit. In an active learning experience such as discussion, constructive criticism can be a very powerful learning tool if offered in this manner.
  • The following questions may be used as guidance for a good response:1.Do you agree with the view put forth? Why/why not?2.What are some of the strengths of such a view? How might one go aboutbuilding upon and developing such a view?3.What are some of the shortcomings of such a view? What sorts ofobjections come to mind to the view put forth? All written material must also conform to proper standards for spelling and grammar.

STUDENT ONE


Part 1

After reading Case 25 on page 97 of “Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues“, the parties involved in this particular case would have to be the understaffed nursing home employees, the nursing supervisor, the elderly patients, and unprescribed tranquilizers. The moral issue at stake would be that “The nursing supervisor frequently orders the nurse to give the patients unprescribed tranquilizers to keep them quiet and docile.”(Ruggerio, p.97). Another moral issue at stake would be that due to the lack of staff the quality of care is very poor. This is similar to Case 5 on pages 93-94 because of how individuals with more status saw little value in the homeless man even though he saved a woman from being robbed. The rights at stake of being violated would have to be the elderly patients, “Natural right: For Locke, any basic or derived right that is the same for all and would already belong to each person in the state of nature. Locke’s four basic natural rights include life, health, liberty, and property.”(Burnor/Raley p.194) Another right i see that is violated in this case would be “what philosopher Joel Feinberg calls manifesto rights—“rights” that are meant to emphasize the moral importance of pressing human needs and concerns.” (Burnor/Raley p.197)

Part 2

I agree with Lock’s philosophy on property as stated in the text which states, “The right of property is especially important in Locke’s theory. For Locke, one’s possessions or property includes everything over which one should be able to exercise control within her domain of autonomy. Property includes whatever is properly mine; my property therefore includes myself as well as my health and my liberty—things over which I have exclusive rights.” (Burnor/Raley p.193) The implications of this would be that “since responsibility requires the ability to make free choices and since natural law particularly emphasizes the role of reason in determining morally right choices, it follows that rights-holders must be autonomous individuals.”(Burnor/Raley p. 199). This means anything seen as unintelligent can be owned by humanity and become property. This leads me to understand how slavery may have been deemed legitimate during its time period. Being that slaves were seen as less then animals (subhuman) and only tools to be used for a labor force or entertainment. “For one thing, it directly denies any natural rights to nonhuman animals, since they lack autonomy. Of course, this result may be just what we should expect, since animals can never be held responsible for their actions either. For the same reason, however, it denies natural rights to certain “defective” human beings.”( Burnor/Raley p.200) The “defective” human is often how slaves were looked as giving people the impression that they had the right to own them.

Burnor, Richard, Yvonne Raley. Ethical Choices: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with Cases. Oxford University Press, USA, 2010.

Ruggiero, Vincent. eBook Online Access for Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues, 9th Edition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2014

STUDENT TWO

Part 1

In the case of the passersby that allowed the man to die, the parties are the man, the attacker, the woman victim and the passersby. The moral issue at stake is the people that witnessed the man in need of medical attention and provided no assistance. In this instance, this case is dealing with claim rights. The claims are addressed against the injured man, it is his passive or claim right to expect help from others when in need as well as the passersby’s moral duty to provide aid for a person necessitating support. It is also the man’s right to life as stated by Lock as one of his four basic natural rights. Stating, “being protected from injuries or harms done by another – the right to health – is likewise crucial, because health helps ensure ongoing life” (Burnor & Raley, pg.195). The duties of natural law that are relevant were for the robber not to steal or commit murder, because it directly relates to the “most specific principles of natural law, principles prohibiting murder and taking the property of other” (Burnor & Raley, pg. 195).

Part 2

I believe you are related to yourself as to property, in the sense that have ownership over yourself. Liberty rights say no man or entity can own you, as you own yourself and own the decisions you make. Your decisions are shaped by your values, moral and ethical duties.

You can use natural law to against the legitimacy of slavery because slavery does not benefit all persons it only benefits the person who owns the slave and takes away the liberties of the slave. Given that life has a natural value, it is incorporated in the theory of natural law, which means that “we have a moral obligation to care for ourselves and others” (Burnor & Raley, pg. 182).

Works Cited

Burnor, Richard and Yvonne Raley. Ethical Choices. New York: Oxford University,

2011. Print.