Rights-Based Ethics (HL IB ESS OLD COURSE - IGNORE)

Rights-Based Ethics

• Rights-based ethical systems focus on actions and whether they conflict with the rights of other entities

  • These entities can include humans, non-human organisms and even ecosystems

• However, there is ongoing debate about the specific rights that individuals or other entities might possess

  • Different perspectives may derive rights from religious texts, philosophical reasoning, or societal norms

  • For example, if a religious text states that killing animals is wrong, then an individual might consider killing animals for food to be ethically incorrect because it conflicts with the rights of the animal (if that individual takes their own ethical rules from the religious text)

• Other ethical frameworks may also acknowledge rights, but rights-based ethics places a central importance on respecting these rights in all decision-making, actions and behaviours

Understanding rights

• Humans are often attributed with a range of rights such as the right to life, freedom of speech, and property rights

• Non-human organisms, including animals, may be granted rights to life, freedom from cruelty and habitat preservation

• In some cultures and societies, certain ecosystems are also considered to possess rights, such as the right to exist, thrive and be protected from harm

• Actions that protect or maintain these rights are seen as morally correct

• Violating these rights therefore makes an action morally incorrect

Disagreements and perspectives

• Debate persists over the nature of rights and who or what possesses them

  • Some argue that only humans possess rights, while others extend rights to non-human organisms, or even non-living entities (such as rivers) and whole ecosystems

• The perspective on the rights of an individual or society greatly influences their ethical decision-making

  • For example, if only humans are attributed rights, actions that uphold human rights but also damage the ecosystem may still be seen as ethically correct

  • If non-living components of the biosphere are attributed rights, a rights-based approach might conclude that increasing air pollution is ethically wrong due to the violation of the atmosphere's rights

  • The debate over factory farming and the ethical treatment of animals is another example that highlights the conflicting perspectives on rights-based ethics

Applying rights-based ethics to environmental actions

• When applying rights-based ethics to environmental actions, considerations extend beyond human interests to include the well-being of ecosystems and non-human organisms

• Actions such as deforestation, pollution and habitat destruction must be evaluated in terms of their impact on the rights of all affected entities

• Environmental conservation efforts, such as establishing protected areas and implementing sustainable practices, align with rights-based ethics because they prioritise the protection of ecosystem rights

Appeal to Nature Fallacy

• "Appeal to nature" is an argument or rhetorical technique, which suggests that if something is natural, it is automatically good or right

  • People often use this argument to justify certain behaviours, practices, or beliefs because they think natural things are better

  • For example, some people argue against vaccination because they believe that allowing the body to naturally fight off diseases is ethically correct and superior to artificial intervention, despite overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of vaccines

• However, whether this reasoning is valid is a big debate among ethicists and philosophers

• Those who think this perspective is contentious and subject to debate often refer to it as the appeal-to-nature fallacy

  • A fallacy is a mistaken belief, reasoning, or argument that appears logical but is actually flawed or misleading, often leading to incorrect conclusions

• Some simple examples demonstrating this fallacy are:

  • Medicine and health:

    • Traditional or alternative medicine often claims natural remedies are better than synthetic drugs

    • For example, herbal supplements are marketed as "natural" and healthier

    • However, they might not always work as effectively

  • Food choices:

    • Some people believe eating organic, unprocessed foods is healthier and more ethical because they're natural

    • But not all natural produce is safe or good for us to eat

Evaluating naturalness

• While nature can sometimes provide inspiration for ethical principles, not everything natural fits ethical norms or values

  • In other words, considering everything 'natural' to be good does not always act as a reliable ethical guide

• For example, diseases like malaria or cholera are natural, but they cause harm and suffering to humans

  • This raises questions about whether it is ethically justifiable to allow the spread of disease-carrying organisms in the name of preserving nature

• Also, some people might see certain human actions, like war or pollution, as natural, even though they are widely considered to be unethical

Ethical considerations

• Making ethical decisions means looking at more than just whether something is natural or not—saying that everything natural is good is too simple

• We need to think about things like what will happen, what society thinks, the rights of individuals, organisms, or ecosystems and how our actions affect these entities

• Relying only on the appeal-to-nature argument ignores these important ethical factors and could lead to wrong conclusions

• Consider this ethical dilemma that could be created:

  • Protecting natural habitats is seen as important

  • But saving endangered species or restoring ecosystems often means humans have to step in, sometimes "interfering" in quite significant ways

  • Some might argue that such interventions contradict the principle of leaving nature untouched

  • Therefore, they may want conservation efforts to be stopped or limited to allow nature to take its natural course without human interference