In week three, we were looking at rights ethics with regards to Locke

Subject:WritingPrice:2.86 Bought15

Share With

In week three, we were looking at rights ethics with regards to Locke. As a reminder, Locke said we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. It is immoral to violate them. Many think we have more rights than those listed by Locke. Some even think we have a right to health care. That means it is the duty of the state to provide each citizen with their medical needs.

Rights theory says to respect the entitlements we have. If a right is inalienable, it cannot truly be violated ethically even with our consent. We have basic needs. Rights are something beyond needs. They are what we should be authorized to have. We are due what we have a right to. That is not always the case with need. For example, we need food, but people often go hungry. A need refers to something we need physically to exist. A right is a moral entitlement to something. Asking if we have a right to food is a moral question. Needs are determined by the requirements of the body and of material existence. Rights are determined by moral reflection, inquiry, an argument We have a right to own property. We do not need it to live. We could imaginably be allowed to use another's. We have a right to own a home. We can rent.

Answer option 1 and the following questions:

Option 1: Assess the moral solutions arrived at through "care" (care-based ethics) and "rights" ethics to social issues of ethical import such as poverty, drug use, and/or lack of health care,

That is, note any ethical problems that arise related to those particular issues. Then, say how both care-based and rights theory of ethics would solve those problems.

Are those solutions correct? Why or why not?

What is your own approach there?