Class Notes (838,378)
Canada (510,867)
Philosophy (644)
PHIL 2103 (58)
Jay Drydyk (53)
Lecture

PHIL 2103 September 19, 2013.docx
Premium

3 Pages
103 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
PHIL 2103
Professor
Jay Drydyk
Semester
Fall

Description
• Moral Guarantees -> Right to something, such as free speech means that it is wrong to deprive you or anybody of their freedom to speech • Does not guarantee free speech, it guarantees that depriving you of that free speech is wrong • Ex. Failed state where human rights are violated • It is wrong to deprive you of human rights when they are violated • Your human rights, if they are legitimate, have justifications o Not just something nice, it is something that happens early in the life of every human right o There is something about this specific right that no one should be deprived of it • Ethical justification: If asserting human right is like saying depriving anyone of something is wrong, wrongness is a moral property • How do you get conclusions about wrongness unless you start with ideas of what is right and wrong? • Need arguments to include some sort of ethical proponent or ideal or principal • Need some part of prescriptive (Statement that says how the world should be) o Need both prescriptive and descriptive to justify a human right • It is possible for them to be bad or to fail • There are rules that apply to ethical arguments o There is a golden and silver rules • This is where we will cause unnecessary harm • There are a scripter of requirements for human rights o Premises should be unproblematic to accent, not just likely o Ex. Type of discrimination: Rights of gays and lesbians not to be discriminated against • Human rights protect against many things • It is unproblematic Prudential arguments • Can use them to rally around human rights, hard to justify human rights • There is no morality or ethics, values there • Mobilize on he basis of what they think is good for them • Ethical theory that concerns people with their goods and well being o Utilitarianism • Consider it for a whole group: Something, doing X would be best for you • Doing X would be best for you, all things considered. o So, • Do X! • Ex. Getting flu shots: good for all of us: so do it! • If we all respected and protected free speech, we should do it HR APPLICATION: • Recognizing and implementing a HR to X would be best for all of us, all things considered (=Fundamental interest) • Let's all recognize and implement a HR to X Therefore, • There is HR to X There is a logial gap: • The premise is that we are doing something that is the best for us • But then we conclude saying that it's wrong for anyone to be deprived of a capability to X • Not a good argument • Need for something else: a principal and moral value to connect the two things: premise and conclusion • The premise has some sort of statement of what is right or wrong rather than what is best for us Moral statements: Three uses of language Assertive or descriptive • Saying what is the case; expressing belief • Direction of fit: making our ideas match the world • Expressing your words the way you think it is • Statements are directions of fit • Descriptions have to match the world Directive: • Giving direct
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 2103

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit