Question

I don't mean human rights, which has a question already. I suppose that not all rights are human rights, though that may not be the case: I think people may actually have a right not to be lied to, but I don't think it is a violation of my human rights to be lied to (perhaps by my government). I assume Kant thought that all rights are inviolable, because all duties are absolute and do not conflict. Does anyone who can couch (perhaps even in part) their meta-ethics in terms of rights claim that some rights can forfeited? At face value, I have a right to basic freedoms, to non-coercion, but criminals and the insane seem to forfeit those. Supposing I do have less duties to them, does that mean that not all people have equal weight in our moral judgments? According to the discussion on rights and duties, if some individuals, such as criminals or the insane, forfeit certain rights due to their actions, what ethical implication arises?

Options:

A. All rights are inviolable, and no one can forfeit them.

B. Certain individuals have fewer rights but equal moral weight.

C. There is a conflict between duties and rights.

D. Rights are contingent upon one's mental state.

Answer 1

The question discusses the philosophical concept of human rights and whether they can be forfeited. Philosophers like Kant have argued for inviolable perfect duties, while others like Ross and Locke recognize the complexity of rights.

Step-by-step explanation:

The discussion on whether all rights are inviolable or whether some rights can be forfeited due to actions by individuals such as criminals or the insane draws upon philosophical debates about the nature of human rights and duties. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant proposed that there are perfect duties, which are absolute and must always be followed, suggesting that rights associated with these duties would be inviolable. Whereas, Sir William David Ross argued against the notion of absolute duties by putting forward the concept of prima facie duties, which acknowledges that duties can sometimes conflict and rights might not be absolute.

John Locke's natural rights philosophy indicates that certain rights are inherent and inalienable, yet historical perspectives and modern governance systems recognize circumstances where rights can be limited, as in the case of criminals or individuals who are deemed a danger to society. This suggests that while rights are fundamental, their application can be contingent upon certain societal norms and legal judgments.