Midterm Material Flashcards

Question

Nussbaum, "Human Dignity and Political Entitlements"

Answer 1

links capabilities argument to human dignity dignity as an important, central concept - not culturally specific, clear understanding rational capability is the source of equal worth and the source of dignity - parallels Kant-->human beings as ends, equal respect - egalitarianism in the stoic concept of dignity need to provide context in which rationality is needed to provide dignity rejects the protection of dignity through rights - need to look at capabilities 1. like 2. bodily health 3. bodily integrity 4. sense, imagination, thought 5. emotions, attachments 6. practical reason, critical reflection 7. affiliation 8. concern for animals and nature 9. laugh, play, enjoy recreational activity 10. control over wants and material **need to secure capabilities in order to achieve dignity**

Answer 2

1. adequate standard of living (25) 2. employment without discrimination (23) 3. basic income guarantee (right to security in event of old age, unemployment, etc.) (25)

Answer 3

commitment to addressing global poverty

Answer 4

subjected to harm-->state/global community has political obligation - legal system based on harm - not universal (states has difference capabilities) freedom only through economic rights (but are subjected to politics/negotiations) **socio-economic violations cannor be protected by judiciary without being thought of as right (policy issue)** - without protection/recognition of SER, there is no way to enforce link between socio-economic & human (civil and political) rights - close enough in motviation - right to development-->empower poor do not provide limit on who can be held accountable categories of accountability 1. judicial: most problematic, not uniform understanding (development of different states) 2. quasi-judicial: international treaties 3. administrative: assessment of poverty level and if state is doing enough 4. political: political process/repercussions to enforce

Answer 5

connection of socio-economic right with general economic idea of neoliberalism - counterargument: trickle-down economics argument is neoliberalism promotes economic growth and therefore it is not in the state's interest to secure more than minimal welfare - meaning no socio-economic rights (not compatible) - pessimistic because right are contrary to neo-liberalism - this is disproved in certain states (Nordic countries)-->argument is not sustainable

Answer 6

Friedman - free trade, lower taxes, free market (decreased regulations) = economic growth - protect freedom is most foundational - modest welfare state (don't impose on freedom) - corporations maximizing profits benefits society

Answer 7

~$1,000 per month - no requirement, for everyone - from taxes, redistribution - cut back on bureaucracy - not a right, impossible in the US right now - minimizing poverty, not replacing

Answer 8

socio-economic rights are not as fundamental/important as civil & political rights - SERs detract from the importance of HR - being on the same level trivialized HR SERs are impossible to secure & translate into positive law or quantifiable judicial action - SERs can be MORAL RIGHTS but should not be human rights (different levels How to distinguish a Human Right - **test of practicality**: need to be achievable & practical (tangible rights and duties) civil & political rights pass - **test of genuinely universal moral right**: moral right applicable to people in all situations [SERs don't pass because rights are employable to only certain classes, purposefully misconstruction of the right to holiday (employment criteria)] - **not of paramount importance?**: suggests SERs only give pleasure and don't relieve stress (no correlation, does not explain, no reason civil & political rights pass)

Answer 9

civil & political rights AND socio-economic rights both need positive duties - creation of justice system to enofrce civil/political rights both rights imply negative and positive duties - cannot be used as a distinction - concludes socio-economic rights are basic human rights political & civil rights require similar redistribution/taxation that socio-economic rights do because that is what funds the justice system - therefore, both are basic rights

Answer 10

argues for three basic rights: liberty, security, subsistence rights - cannot enjoy other rights without these subsistence rights are both positive and negative & security rights aren't solely negative basic rights are a subset of moral rights-->moral rights = basic rights if and only if - moral right has these three components 1. rational basis for justified demand 2. actual enjoyment 3. socially guaranteed against standard threats - other conditions of a basic right 1. everyone has a right to something, A 2. something, B, is necessary for A 3. therefore, everyone is entitled to B & A PROBLEM: basic rights depend on preexsisting recognition of these basic rights - do not have justified demant before they are 1) socially guaranteed; 2) actually enjoyable/accessible each basic right has three duties 1. avoid deprivation (negative) 2. protect from deprivation (positive) 3. aid the deprived (positive) - makes socio-economic rights (subsistence) no more burdensome than civil & political rights (also entail positive duties)

Answer 11

right = contract between citizen and state - rights are only meaningful when they're enforced and realized - cost of enforcing political & civil right is much lower than enforcing socio-economic rights - depends on judicial system-->might inctrude on democratic component of state tries to distinguish between rights that are enforced through the judicial system and rights subjected to democratic process (legal vs. political) - socio-economic rights are politices/subject to politices-->democracy determines society's redistribution desires, public safety & democratic - deterined through public debate - courts only interpret laws - ex: education, housing not in Constitution-->treat socio-economic rights like policy, overreach to enforce without vote capabilities of states are different, thus difference in socio-economic rights while civil & political rights are universal - undermines civil & political rights to treat them as equal **civil & political rights NOT subject to debate, socio-economic rights are because of differing capabilities of states** - civil & political rights enable democracy-->socio-economic rights determined within democracy problems: - some countries do not secure civil & political rights - limits Constitutional interpretation by judiciary

Answer 12

human rights are a subset of moral rights - moral rights have moral force in content-->right to certain goods & freedoms essential to human existance - not dependent on political process or recognition argument based on equality (most fundamental) - references to Gewirth's agency argument three universal shared needs/capacities combined with agency to justify argument 1. physical need (shelter, clothing, food, etc.) 2. physical security (free of bodily harm) 3. equality (implies respect of humanity) long, challenging list--> limit by emphasizing those rights that are lacking/limited, determined by agency standard - most important capacities: 1. ability to make choices 2. capacity to learn and benefit from that learning 3. capacity for having relations needs/capacities imply rights - socio-economic rights shouldn't be prioritiexed when compared to civil & political rights

Answer 13

through experiment: laws of peoples - 8 components to theory of global justice 1. peoples are free and independent 2. peoples are to observe treaties 3. peoples are equal according to agreements that bind them 4. peoples are to observe non-intervention (self-defense only) 5. peoples have a right to self-defense 6. peoples respect/honor human rights 7. peoples follow just war theories (restrictions on war) 8. people have duty to assist other peoples (not part of international law) liberal peoples: liberal constitution, rule by majority/democracy decent peoples: internally not as just, well-ordered and accepted as members of international society - must recognize core list of human rights = subsistence, security, sufficient measure of liberty & conscious, personal property, equality before law (tries to accomidate cultureal differences) liberal societies should't criticize decent societies -treat equally and not interfere outlaw states: don't secure basic human rights, may be aggressive burdened states: still developing, don't have institutions to protect human rights - obligation to help these states become well-ordered benevolent absolutist states: honor human rights, people denied meaningful role in political decisions **argues that states has an obligation to help other states, but these are limited to institutional building** - global justice limited to providing aid - establish institutions for stability

Answer 14

global order causes harm-->what kinds of duties do rich countries have towards poor countries? institutional thesis: growth and prospertiy depend on the quality of institutions - no rule of law-->unable to enforce contracts-->unable to participate in global market - main/best explanation geographical thesis: prosperity depends on natural resources - counterexample: Japan integration thesis: propserity depends on global market integration and ability to participate going of institutional thesis-->harm principle relies on resources - HARM1: general harm (broken, shattered) - HARM2: undermine interest of state (no redistribution, only aid) - HARM3: violating rights of state (redistribution) HARM3 implies common/joint ownership of world's resources (no justification for this THUS no violation of rights) - condition of HARM2 is met - richer states need to supply aid (same conclusion as Rawls)

Answer 15

global justice is a fantasy, no global institutions imposing redistribution is a villation of state's freedom and sovereignty - ceorsion - justice demande sovereignty-->only at domestic level only a state can claim political legitimacy--> enforce through legal authority - no political legitimacy, no justice no global instutions-->no global justice reality: multiple global instutitions, different levels of enforcement

Answer 16

argues that in the though experiement people would come up with more desires of states... 1. principle of equal opportunity (instutitions run by most powerful states, more opportunities for participation) 2. principle of democratic participation (limit disproportionate power of certain states) 3. principle of limiting economic opportunity (demand redistributive justice) tried to make global justice sphere like domestic sphere - redistribution - greater democratic representation in international institutions - would require high(er) level of trust