Rights and Duties

Student’s Name:

Instructor’s Name:

Course Code:

Date:

Rights and Duties

Question 1:

The relationship between a right and a duty is that they are closely related. A right refers to an expectation regarding something an individual deserves or a way to act, which is justified by the legal or moral foundation. A right cannot be denied at whatever means, and when denied, there are consequences associated with the denial. An example of a right is the right to life. On the other hand, duties refer to the direct results occurring from the acceptance of rights. Every person has a duty to uphold in respecting other people’s rights, just as the other person has an obligation to respect another person’s rights.

Based on this, the relationship between rights and duties is that duties are meant to preserve the rights of other people. We all have a duty to preserve the rights of others, such as the right to life, so that ours can be protected as well. In his deontological theory, Emmanuel Kant defines perfect duties as those duties that an individual must do. An example of a perfect duty includes a teacher awarding an excelled student a grade ‘A.’ It would be wrong if the teacher awarded the student a different grade. On the other hand, imperfect duties are those that an individual must not ignore but has multiple means of fulfillment. According to Emanuel Kant, there are two types of imperfect duties that include the duty to help others as well as the duty of self-improvement.

Question 2:

The schema (a) A right is a claim to something, (b) against someone, and (c) that ought to be recognized as valid tend to have different meanings. 

A right to claim to something – Individuals do not only have a right, but a right-claim has to specify what individuals have a right to. The specification, in this case, however, could take two different forms that include claiming that someone ought to refrain from doing certain things against them. For example, everyone has the right to claim the right to life, and this means that other people should refrain from taking away the person’s life. In this case, the right to life is a negative right implying that they are rights to be free from certain kinds of interference. A right to claim can also take the form of positive rights in which others perform certain actions. For example, the right to life not only implies that we only have a duty not to kill someone, but we also have an obligation to keep them alive that can be achieved by providing security and other basic needs to prevent them from dying.

A right is a claim against someone – As noted above, rights have correlative duties in that we have an obligation to refrain from certain activities to protect others. At the same time, we have an obligation to perform certain activities to protect the other person’s rights. Based on this, a right to claim against something must be specified or implied by the particular claim that someone has a certain right. For example, negative rights are more likely to give rise to negative duties for everyone. For example, an individual has the right to life, and this means that everyone has the duty to keep them alive. On the other hand, a positive right imposes a duty on a specific person. For example, an individual has the right to live, and this means that we have an obligation not only to refrain from killing them but we have to keep them alive. The duty imposed in this case involves providing essentials such as education to help preserve their lives.

Rights are claims that ought to be recognized as valid – There are two types of rights, according to Feinberg, and that is legal rights, which defines rights as claims whose recognition is called for by the law. Based on this, valid rights are those recognized by the law and which are enforced by the law. Therefore, rights that are not recognized by the law are illegal and do not require legal duties. The other type of rights is the moral rights, which are claims whose recognition is required by morality, regardless of whether it is required by the law. The distinction between legal and moral rights is that a person can have moral rights or duty, which might not be protected or enforced by the law. Also, an individual can have legal rights that are protected by the law but are not rooted in morality. Therefore, rights should be recognized as valid based on whether they are legal and morally rooted, or they are moral and legally protected and enforced by the law.

Question 3:

An example of rights chosen is Google in China, which is a case of negative rights to information. Google opened a censored Web site in China, and this denies the rights of an individual to access information. Negative rights assert that a person has the right to access information. Therefore, censoring the website is morally wrong since it denies the Chinese citizens the right to access information of their choice.

According to the concept of the validity of rights, a person may have moral rights or legal rights, and both need to be backed up by the other. For example, the right to information is a legal right, and this means that Google has a responsibility to offer information to the public. However, a legal right cannot be valid if it is not rooted in morality. Positive rights claim that we all have an obligation to preserve the rights of others by respecting them and offering essential support that guarantees the continued privileged of enjoying the rights. The obligation may be moral or legal, and each of them has to be backed by the other.

In the case of Google in China, censoring the websites is the legal requirement of the Chinese government, and therefore not a decision made by Google officials. The right to enjoy information freely, which is morally right, is not guaranteed in China, and this means that Google as a service provider, does not have a duty to provide uncensored information to the Chinese. In this case, Google does not have positive rights that are aimed to back up the provision of uncensored information. A person may have moral rights that do not have legal backing and enforcement, and at the same time, they may enjoy legal rights that are not morally rooted. In both cases, the rights are not valid, and therefore, the case of Google in China, which involves the provision of censored information, is not valid. Google only has a moral responsibility to offer information but does not have the legal backing to provide uncensored information, and this is why the rights are recognized as not valid.