Ethics

Why do we have some fundamental rights (such as freedom of conscience or the right to life) but not others (such as the right to sexuality, or the right to happiness)? Who decides? Who prioritizes?

Comments

When you write about "who decides? who prioritizes?" it sounds as though you are referring to legal rights. While some ethical theories of rights do appeal to contracts and social agreements, much of the philosophy of rights appeals to nature, human nature specifically, or to duties, which are not a matter of convention. So, assuming that we human beings do have a right to life and this is foundational (it entails that others have a duty not to murder me, for example), this is not something normally thought of in terms of a person or group of people deciding we have such a right. In any case, whether legal or ethical, some rights are considered more fundamental because they explain more particular rights. So, it is natural to think that the right of self-expression is more fundamental than my right to write a letter about my beliefs, because the first right explains the latter. Your having a right to liberty (within constraints) is more foundational than your right to start walking toward the setting sun, because (again) the one is more foundational).

Of the rights you mention, each one can give rise to rather complex questions. Some rights are considered more foundational than others when they give rise to duties for other people. One reason for thinking (of those rights you mention) that the right (if there is one) to be sexually active is not as foundational as the right to life is because in the former case (presumably) no one has a duty to have sex with you, whereas if you have a right to life others may have a duty to rescue you when your life is in danger.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Ethics