Write a draft dealing with the case Robot Druggie 

JOHN RAWLS
OUTLINE FOR RAWLS ARGUMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

RAWLS CONTRACT THEORY
Hypothetical Imperative
Recall the Kantian Categorical Imperative which is a rule that must be followed, no
matter what.
Rawls gives us a hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical imperative says that suppose
this were the case, then we ought to do this.
Like Hobbes & Locke, Rawls is trying to imagine a state of nature where everyone
begins with true equality, or at least begins without a sense of privilege.
Counterfactual is an imaginary situation used to persuade in favor of a theory. Here is
the Rawlsian counterfactual:

RAWLS VEIL OF IGNORANCE
Imagine a group of people assembled in a room to create a government and laws.
Imagine also that everyone in this group has severe amnesia and cannot see
themselves or others.They also cannot feel themselves or others.

RAWLS ORIGINAL POSITION: a society that does not start w/ prejudice
Those in the Original Position are color-blind, class-blind, blind to educational level,
blind to gender, blind to sexual orientation, blind to religious affiliation, blind to special
needs, etc. Rawls maintains that if we made laws & governments, or if we examined
fairness under this veil of ignorance, we would logically end up with his system, thus
Rawls bridges suppose to ought.

He claims that, given the Original Position, rational agents under a veil of ignorance
would agree to his PRINCIPLES 1 and 2 stated here:

PRINCIPLE 1.
Each person has equal RIGHT to most extensive LIBERTIES compatible w/ liberties for
all (NEGATIVE RIGHTS)
We would be concerned that we all get enough basic freedom

PRINCIPLE 2.
Distribute benefits and burdens so that both:

B. Offices and positions are open to all (EQUAL OPPORTUNITY)
We would be concerned that we have a chance to having some control over what
happens, if we want to have that control. (Equal Opportunity at government
positions.) We would also be concerned that we have equal shot at applying for
jobs in an open market. (Equal Opportunity as Non-discrimination in the job
market).

A. GREATEST BENEFIT possible arises for the least advantaged

We would be afraid we might be the worst off, so we would want to make those at
the very bottom as well off as we could
IMPORTANT:
PRINCIPLE 1 over-rides PRINCIPLE 2-we would be most concerned that we get
basic liberty.
B over-rides A. Chance to improve as hope to rise above being at the very bottom is
more important than being a little better off at the very bottom.

APPLYING RAWLS TO CASES
RAWLS seriously means absolutely using this PRINCIPLE 1 over PRINCIPLE 2
because we would be most concerned that we get basic liberty
B over-rides A. Chance to improve as hope to rise above being at the very bottom is
more important than being a little better off at the very bottom. In other words, if you are
hopeless about getting a better job but have food stamps and Xbox, you are pretty
miserable. Better to do without the Xbox and have a chance at a job.

When applying Rawls you MUST follow the order he follows :
1. negative rights
2. equal chance for jobs
3. least advantaged

FAIRNESS for RAWLS means
1. NEGATIVE RIGHTS . Negative Rights are not violated. If negative rights are

violated but everyone has equal opportunity and least advantaged are not worse,
STOP, DO NOT USE RAWLS. Use rights theory instead. You cannot go on from
here with Rawls. If only negative rights are violated then it is a Negative Rights
case, not a Rawls case. So, your first step is just to show first that everyone gets
to keep their negative rights, or loses them

2. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY as in the Equal Opportunity Act Rawls is discussing
jobs. Specifically, he is discussing hiring practices. Your second step is just
to show whether anybody is losing chance for jobs (EQUAL OPPORTUNITY).
Just show whether-there is job discrimination in hiring practices in your case. But
you need to show this. You need to explain how the case relates to hiring
practices. Even if there is no discrimination, you need to explain why there is
none. Even if the case has nothing to do with hiring for jobs, you need to explain
that the case has nothing to do with hiring.
Equal opportunity does not mean equal chance for goods or services, it only
means chance for jobs. Having no equal chance for jobs means you do not have
the chance to rise above your status.
For Rawls, opportunity for goods & services is going to be unequal. Not everyone
is going to have the exact same amount of riches, etc. When Rawls discusses
equal opportunity he means equal chance to apply for jobs and to be considered
on your merit and qualifications. If you are poor, in this country you can still apply
for any job. You should then be considered on your merit, not discriminated

against for any non-job related factors. The fact that you have less education
disqualifies you possibly, but that is not primarily an issue of equal opportunity.
Education is a service. Under least advantaged, that is where access to goods
and services applies under Rawls.
Also, it is important to recognize that preserving a whole field or industry is not
part of the Rawls scenario of opportunity for jobs. He is not referring to making
more jobs available and he is not referring to saving jobs that might be lost.
Arguing this way is like arguing that we should all ride in a horse and buggy in
order to preserve the jobs of blacksmiths. It is like saying we should all smoke
cigarettes to preserve the tobacco industry. Having the chance to get a job in a
particular field by preserving jobs in that field is not what Rawls means by equal
opportunity.

3. LEAST ADVANTAGED . Only after you have covered Negative Rights & Equal
Opportunity can you even begin to talk about Least Advantaged. By least
advantaged Rawls is not referring to the least advantaged of those involved in the
case you are discussing. He means least advantaged in society. The least
advantaged are the poor, homeless, ill (least advantaged are not companies.) For
example, if your case deals with homeowners seeking remodeling services then
there are no least advantaged. The least advantaged do not own homes. Under
least advantaged, that is where access to goods and services applies under
Rawls. It is not the case that these should be equal, he tells us, instead, we
should try to make the poorest able to be better off, make their access to goods
and services as good as it could possibly be. For Rawls, it might not be possible
to avoid having richest & poorest, but at least we must try to make the poorest as
well off as we can. This, however, he tells us is something we want to look for
only if it will not make jobs less open and only if it will not deprive everyone of
negative rights.

This 3 step process is absolutely essential to Rawls. You must prove that a test is not
violated, and you must prove when tests are violated.

OUTLINE FOR RAWLS ARGUMENT
1. DEFINE RAWLSIAN THEORY: Justice as fairness means negative rights are

preserved, there is equal opportunity for jobs, and the least advantaged are
helped as much as possible while preserving negative rights and equal
opportunity. (just copy and paste definition)

2. State in one sentence if the action violates Rawls or not.
3. State in one longer sentence how the action applies to this case: negative rights

are/are not preserved, there is/is not equal opportunity for jobs, and the least
advantaged are/are not helped as much as possible.

4. DEFINE NEGATIVE RIGHTS Negative rights are a justified claim to be left
alone. Just copy/paste the definition.

5. List in a sentence everyone who has negative rights involved.
6. In a paragraph for each group of people, state their negative rights.

7. Explain for each group if their negative rights are preserved or not, and why or
how.

8. DEFINE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Offices and positions are open to all. Just
copy/paste the definition.

9. State whether jobs are open to everyone or not.
10. If the case is not relevant to job opportunity, explain why the case is not related to

hiring practices.
11. If job opportunity is closed for some, explain who is being shut out & why.
12. DEFINE LEAST ADVANTAGED Members of society at the very bottom,

receiving least goods and services. Just copy/paste the definition.
13. Explain precisely who the least advantaged are in this case.
14. Describe their lives of disadvantage.
15. Explain how this case could or would result in worse or same or better conditions

for the least advantaged.
16. If least advantaged would be worse off because of the action, then describe what

their lives would be like.
17. End by recapping where the case is most relevant to Rawls (which test is most

relevant & why).

RIGHTS
NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE RIGHTS ………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
PRIMA FACIE RIGHTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
RIGHTS (ARGUMENT Section of OUTLINE) …………………………………………………………………………… 11

RIGHTS are a justified claim to a certain kind of treatment from others, to
help from others or to be left alone by others.

We begin our understanding of ethical theories by first looking at RIGHTS
THEORY. Early rights theory was written as philosophers sought political and
legal rights for everyone. Philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke proposed
that we find in the natural state of man, some conditions or traits that can be
used to justify rights in the ethical sense. With that ethical justification, it would
be possible to argue for legal rights for everyone. Today, we so clearly believe
in rights that we seek no justification. we just have rights.
So, to begin, we look at Hobbes and Locke who tried to imagine what human
beings would be like in a state of nature, before governments and civilization,
and we note how this early philosophy guided rights theory embodied in
American thinking. We then look at more recent views on rights.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
One of the earliest thinkers to discuss rights. Hobbes was a political
philosopher. He was mostly concerned with governments and the relationship of
governments to society. Being a political philosopher was most relevant at his
time because Europe was then only beginning to realize that monarchy was not
the only form of government, and Hobbes had a great hand in bringing about
this realization. Under the monarchial system that prevailed in Europe, kings
were presumed to have ethical divine rights, rights given to kings by God. The
concept of ordinary people having individual rights was strongly advocated by
Hobbes.

In Leviathan, published in 1651, Hobbes maintained that

Man in a state of nature has the right to do what is necessary to protect
himself and to get what he can get however he can get it, everyman for
himself.

Imagine a primitive man living on a tropical island with fellow island natives.
Every day is a fight for existence, to get just a decent coconut for supper. In this
state of nature the strongest or the most devious gets the coconuts. But this is

not a desirable life for most, so men give up their natural right to those
[governments.] who contract [promise] to bring peace and protection.

DO NOT USE OR QUOTE HOBBES ON CASE STUDIES. Students read
Hobbes and misunderstand. Hobbes is saying that once upon a time in the days
of cavemen, before civilization, it was every man for himself. But we do not live
in a state of nature. We are not cavemen. We live in civilized society, we have
given up this everyman for himself rights scenario as soon as we are born in
society. Everyman for himself only applies to a world with complete disorder.

John Locke (1632-1704)
Locke disagreed with Hobbes about the conditions of primitive humans. Locke
maintained that there was never such a state of nature where every man is for
himself alone. Instead, Locke emphasizes that humans are social animals. The
most primitive man is part of a cooperating society. Such cooperation is how
humans as animals survived in nature. Quoting Locke in his 1690 Second
Treatise of Civil Government :

In a natural state all were equal and independent, and none had a right to
harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

Notice how this view is opposed to the Hobbesian state of nature. Also, for
Locke, Government does not over-ride society or individual rights, government
must be accountable.

One of the most important elements of Lockean rights is his view on property
and labor. Locke maintained:

When we mix our labor with the natural world, we blend part of ourselves with
that labor. That is how we come to own property, ethically. So, labor accounts
for most of the property value of an object, but these rights are limited by our
ability to consume & our ability to produce goods–to prevent goods from being
spoiled, or wasted. If we can labor to own more than we can use, then we no
longer have a right to that property. We cannot just let what we have go to
waste while other people do without because they cannot produce. But goods of
greater durability can be exchanged for those that spoil. Money is durable, so
we can exchange money for spoilable goods.

But once we begin to work earnestly and ethically accumulate more of these
valuable durable goods (money) than our neighbors, then we must have some

means of protecting these surplus durable goods so that others wont take them.
Government arises as a means to protect the durable goods that you have
exchanged for the fruits of your labor. In other words, once money comes into
use, government becomes necessary to protect property. Before money and
other such valuable durable goods (jewels, precious art, etc.) man kept what he
could use and no more. Because government arises to protect property of
governed, then:

Property precedes government and government cannot dispose of the
estates of the subjects arbitrarily.

UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
In 1776, we find a formulation of rights borrowed from philosophers such as
Hobbes and Locke, in our own Declaration Of Independence. This document
specifies:

INALIENABLE RIGHTS to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away or ignored. They are
rights you cannot give up. Inalienable rights are a cornerstone of Lockean rights
and prove very important to rights today.

Be aware, rights specified in the U.S. Constitution are legal rights. These rights
were originally formulated on the basis of ethical rights. You cannot use legal
rights to justify ethical rights. Instead, ethical rights are used to justify legal
rights. Using our constitutional rights to justify ethical rights is an unethical
perspective. If you want to say we should have a right because it is written in
our U.S. constitution, this is like saying that people outside of the U.S. do not get
or should not also get those rights. Indeed our constitution is irrelevant. When
discussing rights be careful not to confuse ethical rights with legal rights. A legal
right is not an ethical right. Ethical rights are the reasons for legal rights. Legal
rights are not reasons for ethical judgments about rights.

Human Rights
Human rights are the rights internationally recognized by the United Nations.
According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, all human beings
have some basic moral rights, some of which are:

• right not to be killed
• the right not to be harmed
• the right to liberty (freedom of movement and benign action.)

In this course, we will not use this language of human rights. Instead, rights are
human rights, unless you look at animal rights. Animal rights rarely come up in
relation to computers, so we just will refer to rights.

NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE RIGHTS

In contemporary ethics of rights, a distinction is made between negative
and positive rights.

NEGATIVE RIGHTS

Negative rights are rights to not be interfered with. Negative here refers to being
left alone, taking no action against us. Negative rights are rights to do what we
want or what we need to do, and nobody should stop us in doing what we need
to do as long as we do not interfere with the negative rights of others. These are
our freedom rights, such as:

• right to practice religion we choose
• right to move about from place to place
• right to protect ourselves from danger
• right to privacy
• right to free speech
• right to make our own sexual choices
• right to seek work to provide for ourselves and our dependents.
• right to seek information
• right to buy, sell, trade
• right to offer services

POSITIVE RIGHTS

Positive rights are rights to help from others (almost always the government) so
that we can reasonably survive, such as:

• right to food, clothing, and shelter

• right to safety
• right to medical treatment
• right to information

It is important to recognize that these positive rights do not supersede our
negative rights. Government does not automatically provide us with food or
clothing. These are provided when we cannot get them for ourselves. Positive
here refers to getting something added to our lives, something that we cannot
add for ourselves for whatever reasons. In a perfect world, we would all be able
to always get the things we need for ourselves. In a perfect world, we would
only have negative rights. But things happen that require government to step in
and provide for us, thus our positive rights arise. After a hurricane, flood,
wildfire, earthquake or tornado, people lose their homes and most of their
property. They are given temporary shelter, food, etc until they can recover from
the disaster and build their lives again. A change of clothes, a place to bathe:
we desperately need these in times of disaster and at those times government
should provide them for us. This is our positive right. Clothing is one of the few
durable goods that are usually considered our personal property yet serve also
as a positive right. Property is otherwise not a positive right.

For example, in the USA victims of natural disasters are given FEMA trailers to
live in when their homes are destroyed. The FEMA trailers provide shelter. The
government supplied shelter because this is a basic positive right. But once
homes are rebuilt, they have to call FEMA to pick up the trailers because the
government did not give them property, just shelter. We do not have a positive
right to own a home. Property rights are negative rights or privileges. Property
rights are not positive rights. We have the negative right to get shelter, and have
that shelter be as permanent as we can get. This would be a kind of negative
right to try to get property. But actually getting property is a privilege of your
circumstance of being able to manage to get property without violating rights of
anyone else. Simply put, government does not owe you a home to keep.
Property is something we want, but we do not necessarily need to own to
survive.

For Locke, property is an important negative right. But by this he means, if you
work to get property, nobody should just decide to take it away from you, not if
you are innocent in how you got that property. In other words, if you got
property by doing actions that did not violate rights of others, then nobody
should be able to just take your property.

Ethically speaking, we do not have the right to make a profit.

Profit is a privilege, not a right. We do not have a negative right to not be
interfered with so that we can make a profit. We do not have a positive right to
help from the government so that we can make a profit. We have the negative
right to buy and sell, and, ethically speaking we might go as far as saying we
have the negative right to break even, but not to maximize profit.

In most countries, people have the legal right to keep profit. But when
discussing rights be careful not to confuse ethical rights with legal rights. A legal
right is not an ethical right. But just because we have no right to make a
profit, does not mean if we seek profit we are losing rights.

Many of the things we need to do to make profit are well within our ethical rights.
In almost all circumstances we have the right to offer goods for sale, to price
those goods, etc. There is nothing inherently unethical about profit. Profit is just
like a Christmas Bonus. You get that bonus in part if you merit it, but also in part
if you are lucky. You do not have a moral right to a bonus. But that does not
mean there is anything wrong with getting a bonus, it just means it is not much
relevant to ethics of rights. Please, just do not mention profit when doing
rights analyses. Profit is not relevant to rights. Do not say that we have no
right to make a profit. This is not relevant. Profit is a motivation for buying and
selling and offering services. You have a right to buy, sell, and offer services as
long as when you do, you do not violate rights of others. Your motivation for
doing business is not relevant.

IMPORTANT: MORE ON DISTINCTION BETWEEN NEGATIVE RIGHTS &
POSITIVE RIGHTS

So we understand that negative rights are rights to do what we want or what we
need to do. These are fairly clear. The right to privacy, right to free speech, right
to protect ourselves, right to make our own sexual choices, right to work to
provide food clothing & shelter for ourselves and our dependents.

Then how do we distinguish these negative rights from positive rights? When
our negative rights are very important, they may need assistance from
governments. This was the point of the social contract theories of Hobbes &
Locke. Governments help us by providing our rights when we cannot or they
help us by making it easier for all of us to see our rights are met. Any positive
right also has a negative right that mirrors it. The difference between negative
and positive rights is that for the positive rights governments help us.

EXAMPLE: We have the right to information.

This means that we have the negative right to seek information we need,
and nobody should interfere with our attempts to gather correct information.
But as we all know, there are many people who try to distort the facts, and
try to make it very difficult for us to get correct information. Right to
information is such an important right that it often is a positive right too. This
means that it is the duty of government to provide correct information to
citizens, and to punish those who gravely violate our right to correct
information. Notice that this right can conflict with our right to free speech.
Is it okay for people to lie and distort the truth? Do we violate their right to
free speech when we punish them? These are important considerations.

RIGHTS ENTAIL DUTIES. NO DUTY, NO RIGHT.
Usually philosophers explain the link between rights and duties in a
reciprocating sense. If you have the right to free speech then you have the DUTY
to reciprocate that right to other people and let them speak freely to you.

But the relationship between rights and duties is actually more basic than
reciprocation. The best way to see this is to look at rights as a natural gift, and
gifts should not be treated like they are nothing. We have all of us gone through
the processes of getting gifts of Freedom and understand it in this basic sense.
We all grew up. As a child you had most of the positive rights: rights to food,
clothing, shelter, freedom from harm. But your negative rights were almost nil.
You did not have the right to freedom of movement. Everywhere you went you
had to have adult supervision. You had no rights to have sex or speak your
mind freely. Your positive right to information was also greatly curtailed. There
were just some things your parents did not want you to know about. But along
with being a virtual prisoner of your parents and teachers, you had very few
duties (responsibilities). Lack of responsibility is the special gift of childhood. As
you grew up, you were given rights: right to drink beer, right to have sex, etc.
But along with these rights came the responsibilities. You can drink now, but
should be responsible enough to handle that alcohol. You can have sex, but
must be responsible for having safe sex or have to deal with all the
consequences of unsafe sex. RIGHTS BRING DUTIES.

Positive Rights of Children

Children are very limited in their negative rights. They are so limited because
they are not yet able to reasonably and freely choose in many areas of consent.
Children do not have the negative right to all information. They do not have most
negative rights of sexual freedom. BUT, children have the most positive rights of

all humans. It is our duty to protect children, to keep them safe from sexual
coercion, to provide them with health care, education, a safe home, etc. It is not
only government that has a duty to provide children with positive rights, it is a
duty of parents, relatives, teachers, and all of us.

Robert Nozick (1938-2002)—Twentieth Century Rights
Robert Nozick is an extreme libertarian. Extreme libertarians hold that no one
has positive rights. We only have the basic negative right to freedom from
coercion which is the right not to be forced to do things against our will. Only
time we can rightfully be forced to do something against our will is when we are
forced to stop coercing others.

But this extreme libertarianism fails to see that, given so much freedom for
everyone, then Hobbes state of nature would seem to follow–one person
exercising freedom often restricts freedom of someone else. Such conflict of
rights are discussed in terms of prima facie rights.

PRIMA FACIE RIGHTS

In legal discourse, rights are distinguished in terms of overriding rights and
Prima Facie Rights. Some rights contradict, given certain circumstances, and
when this arises, some rights become secondary and are then obviated
(cancelled). The rights which are weaker are called Prima Facie Rights. Prima
means first and facie means face. Prima facie literally means first face, as in
superficial, just outward appearance. Prima facie rights are rights that appear at
first to be important until some more important right stands in its way, then the
prima facie does not seem so important. Although Prima Facie Rights are
mostly discussed in legal literature, they are indeed based on the notion of
Prima Facie Ethical Rights.

My negative right to whatever is often, (sometimes very) likely to interfere with
your right. For example, I have the right to listen to music. But if I play music
loud enough, this can interfere with your right to peace and quiet. Which right
wins out? We could decide by which right is more necessary to our basic needs.
Do I need to listen to music? Do I need peace and quiet? Well, most everyone
agrees, we need peace and quiet for well being. Music is an extra, not a need.
But making this decision is not necessarily so simple. Back home (New Orleans
area) music is considered necessary to life, like breathing. It is difficult to get

people to buy into the peace and quiet line. Notice that I have switched from
talking about ethics as what is right and wrong for everyone regardless of what
their culture believes, to looking at what people agree about, and that can vary.
This switch is okay because once we start talking about needs we are talking
about FACTS, not just ethics. If ethics relates to facts then we start looking for
facts about needs that we agree are not subjective and not just cultural. In the
case of the right to listen to music, weighed against the right to peace and quiet,
we find a need involved that is definite: we need to sleep. Everyone has a right
to sleep at night. So if you play music at night and disturb sleep of your
neighbors, you have violated their more important right to sleep at night, even in
Louisiana, except during Mardi Gras, Christmas Eve, and countless town
festivals.

Doing ethical rights analysis of cases is often a matter of weighing conflicting
rights, like music v. sleep.

Negative rights almost always trump positive rights. The philosophical concept
that best explains why is the difference between doing nothing and taking
action. Governments, in doing nothing, might not completely fulfill their duty to
provide positive rights, but in taking action that violates negative rights
governments put themselves in the unethical position of violating rights of
innocent people. You cannot provide positive rights if it means performing
actions that violate the rights of innocent people. This applies almost universally
in rights theory. Every positive right is based on a negative right that a person
cannot meet on their own. It is the negative right that “grounds” the ethical
imperative of positive rights. It is because we have the negative right to try to get
our own food, clothing, and shelter that we extend that right to positive rights,
making the ethical case that when we cannot get them, someone has to give
them to us. You have negative rights, and only in very special circumstances
should positive rights kick in. Your negative rights arise as you reach the age of
consent: adulthood that signifies you can make logical choices about your own
life and your own needs.
Would we want government to provide everything for us? Most of us would
prefer to make our own choices about how we get basic necessities because we
get a sense of fulfillment and worth from doing things for ourselves (exercising
our negative rights) instead of having government give these to us. Free choice
is the basis of rights theory. Rational adults should make their own choices.

GOVERNMENT DUTIES, INNOCENT PEOPLE, & CONFLICTING RIGHTS

Governments have no rights. Governments are not people. Government staff
are people, and as private citizens, off duty, they have rights. But as staff of
government in their role as government, they have no rights. Governments only
have duties: duty to serve the people they represent. This role of duty applies to
police, teachers, NSA, TSA, elected officials, monarchs, and appointed officials,
etc. The only right preserved even while functioning as government staff, is right
to free speech, but even free speech may have limits when you are working for
government.

Given rights theory, government has 2 basic duties:

1. protect negative rights
2. provide positive rights.

The role of government in terms of conflicting rights is especially important to
computer ethics and negative rights. While it is true that rights often conflict, it is
also true that innocent people should not have their negative rights violated, not
if they do not violate rights of others.

This becomes most important in issues of privacy and government interference.
These days it almost seems that governments believe technology can and
should be used in the name of right to safety. But if you do not violate safety
your rights do not conflict with rights of others. Governments use prima facie
rights against us, and they do so often in the name of an ethics of rights. One
mistake students usually make is to assume that right to safety often conflicts
with your rights to privacy or free speech or information. But, if you are innocent,
you have no rights in conflict. Yes, government has the duty to provide you with
safety, but this positive right to safety cannot be used as an excuse for
government to violate your negative rights to privacy, not if you are innocent of
any violation of rights of others. If you are INNOCENT, you are just not a threat
to safety. If you are an innocent person, not going to hurt anyone, government
cannot shackle you, lock you up, scan you, pat you down, just to make sure
everyone is safe. They can only do this to those who threaten safety.

Human beings are individuals each with dignity & self-worth. We are not cattle
being horded onto trucks, we are not bits of straw in a collective haystack that
need to be prodded and inspected in order to weed out the needles in the
haystack. If you are not a threat, there is no conflict between your negative
rights and your safety or the safety of anyone else.

In order to violate your privacy government must have good reason to assume
your guilt. Government needs to have proof that you as an individual are a

threat to safety before they can start treating you like you might be a threat to
safety by scanning you, reading your mail, or whatever. This is rights theory.

But how then are they to know who is meaning to cause harm if they cannot
screen us first? Government does have a problem here. The solution is to find
non-invasive ways to screen us, etc. Government must find some other way to
provide you with safety, they cannot violate the rights of innocent people in
order to give you safety. At least they cannot do so in the name of an ethics of
rights.

RIGHTS (ARGUMENT Section of OUTLINE)
1. DEFINE RIGHTS: RIGHTS are a justified claim to a certain kind of treatment from

others, to help from others or to be left alone by others. (just copy and paste
definition)

2. State very generally, in one sentence, if rights are violated
3. List ALL groups or individuals whose rights are or might be involved (a sentence)
4. Write a paragraph for each group (or each individual) explaining how their rights are
possibly involved. Explain the importance of that right.
5. Explain in a separate paragraph which rights are violated, if any.
6. Explain in a separate paragraph which rights conflict, if any do
7. If there are conflicting rights, weigh the conflicting rights of the groups: which are most
important?

VIRTUE ETHICS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Some virtues ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

Aristotle …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
SOME VICES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

OUTLINE FOR VIRTUES ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

VIRTUE ETHICS
We should develop good moral characters or work to become virtuous
people.
Notice that the definition of virtues is circular: being virtuous means developing a
virtuous character. The definition is circular because being virtuous involves
developing the tendency to a number of virtues, and no one virtue defines being
virtuous.

Some virtues
Caution
Charity
Courage
Discipline
Flexibility
Forgiveness
Helpfulness
Honesty
Humility
Loyalty
Patience
Prudence
Responsibility

Virtue ethics has a long history dating back to Confucius. In western
philosophy we study the theory of virtue of Aristotle

Aristotle
Ancient Greek Philosopher (384-322 BC)
According to Aristotle, virtues come from habit. In turn, habit comes from
-education, training, and practice. Just being courageous, forgiving, etc., is not
enough, rather developing virtues involves knowing when to use courage,
when and how to forgive. This requires a lifetime of development.

Aristotle & the Golden Mean
Virtue is a balance between extremes, a mean between 2 vices, one of excess and
the other of deficiency

Example
[recklessness is excess of courage] is [cowardice is deficiency of courage]
Aristotle’s main virtues: justice, courage, temperance, and prudence.

Notice that Justice is a virtue. Compassion, caring, and kindliness are also virtues.
However, the virtues of Justice & Caring (compassion) are deemed so very
important in modern ethics studies, that we have separated these two virtues from
the rest.
So, never discuss Justice or Caring as virtues, instead, use the ethical
theories of Justice or Caring.
In English we rarely have the kinds of balances of virtues of excess/mean/deficiency
in our terminology . We just do not have that virtues mindset. So, applying balance
the way Aristotle does seldom works for us.

What we have instead are some virtues that we can list and name, and we have
some vices, the opposite of virtues. But often in English we will speak of a vice
without having a word that corresponds as a virtue. So, if you are arguing that
someone or a company is unvirtuous, it is best to just discuss the vice they
consistently show that makes them unvirtuous.

SOME VICES
Apathy
Arrogance
Conceit
Corruption
Cowardice

Dishonesty
Greed
Ignorance
Irresponsibility
Laziness
Lewdness
Malice
Recklessness
Ruthlessness
Shortsightedness
Stinginess
Stubbornness

How then might we discuss cases applied to virtue ethics? Recall that when we
discussed rights we were careful to avoid speaking of ethical rights of
businesses. Only people have rights. In the case of Utilitarianism, we must be
careful not to consider the good of a company as such, the people in the
company should be the focus.
But ethically, we can speak of specific virtues applying to companies:
companies, institutions, and organizations over time can indeed develop
ethical climates or traits , so that we can speak of an honest company or a
shortsighted company or a greedy company. It is important to recognize that
one act of dishonesty of a company does not make the company lacking in that
virtue. Rather, repeated dishonesty shows that that virtue is not well balanced
for this company. Think Microsoft, and you can recognize characteristic
policies that come from this company that have called its virtue into question. A
company is made up of policy-setters and those who enforce those policies on
an on-going basis.

EXAMPLE: Once upon a time HP was viewed as the one place everyone
wanted to work. The HP environment was consistent over time and various
employee relations and customer and marketing policies gave it the label of
a good company. Beginning with the retirement, and finally after the death of
H & P, all of that changed. HP is no longer the virtuous company it once

was. New CEOs promise it will get better, but HP will probably never again
reach that pinnacle of virtue it once fostered.

OUTLINE FOR VIRTUES ARGUMENT

1. DEFINE VIRTUE ETHICS We should develop good moral characters or
work to become virtuous people.

2. Make a general statement (x is virtuous/not virtuous) about each
responsible or relevantly involved party.

3. For each responsible or relevantly involved party:
a. PARTY A

1. List their virtues (if any) in relation to the case. (a sentence)
2. Define each virtue
3. Explain how definition of the virtue fits the details of the case.
4. List their vices (if any) in relation to the case.
5. Define each vice
6. Explain how definition of the vice fits the details of the case.

b. PARTY B
1. List their virtues (if any) in relation to the case. (a sentence)
2. Define each virtue
3. Explain how definition of the virtue fits the details of the case.
4. List their vices (if any) in relation to the case.
5. Define each vice
6. Explain how definition of the vice fits the details of the case.

C. Repeat sub-steps 1 to 6 for all of the involved parties you can think
of that did or could have shown virtues or vices. Sometimes the victims
act very virtuously, sometimes they do not.

You define the virtues & vices by looking them up in a dictionary. Most
are straightforward, but be careful when using the vice of corruption, defined in
terms of virtues, is broader than the usual definition. It is a very important vice.
(Corruption – not only are you bad, you are encouraging others to be bad,

fostering vice in others. In other words, corruption has 2 parties, the one being
corrupted & the one doing the corrupting. The one doing the corrupting is
especially bad.