Authority and Interest in the Theory of Right

I suggest a new role for authority and interest in the theory of right: Rights can be explicated as sets of prohibitions, permissions and commands, and they must be justified by interests. I argue as follows: (1) The two dominant theories of right—“Will Theory” and “Interest Theory”—have certain standard problems. (2) These problems are systematic: Will Theory’s criterion of the ability to enforce a duty is either false or empty outside of its original legal context, whereas Interest Theory includes in the definition of a right what actually belongs to the justification of the practice within which that right is assigned. (3) I recast the connection between authority, interests and rights in a way that avoids each theory’s standard problem. (4) The resulting theory also has three further advantages: It analyzes rights in terms of very basic and familiar concepts; it mirrors the understanding of rights in actual public discourse, and it is compatible with a wide selection of moral theories. Since its core is about a specific use of modal auxiliary verbs, I call this new theory the “Modal Theory of Right.

Peter Geach's Ethics

Geach is best known for his contributions to theoretical philosophy: Most of his more than one hundred papers and a dozen books are on logic, philosophy of language and metaphysics. But he also made significant contributions to ethics. Particularly influential were a series of short metaethics papers, which are small masterpieces, both in terms of philosophical content and style. In usually less than ten pages, Geach delivers sharp analyses and powerful objections against influential schools. His arguments are always so clear and his examples so simple that they leave the reader wondering why no one before Geach detected the problems he points out

Anscombe on the Sources of Normativity

Anscombe is usually seen as a critic of “Modern Moral Philosophy.” I attempt a systematic reconstruction and a defense of Anscombe’s positive theory. Anscombe’s metaethics is a hybrid of social constructivism and Aristotelian naturalism. Her three main claims are the following: (1) We cannot trace all duties back to one moral principle; there is more than one source of normativity. (2) Whether I have a certain duty will often be determined by the social practices of my community. For instance, duties imposed by other people’s rights are socially constructed. (3) Whether something constitutes a good, however, will often be determined by human nature—which is not socially constructed

Life and Other Basic Rights in Anscombe

Following Elizabeth Anscombe, rights exist within practices. A right consists in a bundle of possible and impossible moves within the relevant social 'game', e.g. the practice of private property. What becomes of basic rights on such a social-constructivist conception? Metaphysically, basic rights do not differ from other rights. The right not to be murdered, however, enjoys a transcendental status within Anscombe's moral philosophy, and this construction might extend to other basic rights: Since practical reasoning is directed at the good life, there can be no sound practical inference concluding in murder. Anscombe's argument for this presupposes a particular conception of human dignity, which is quite similar to the dominant conception in contemporary human rights literature

Automation, Basic Income and Merit

A recent wave of academic and popular publications say that utopia is within reach: Automation will progress to such an extent and include so many high-skill tasks that much human work will soon become superfluous. The gains from this highly automated economy, authors suggest, could be used to fund a universal basic income (UBI). Today's employees would live off the robots' products and spend their days on intrinsically valuable pursuits. I argue that this prediction is unlikely to come true. Historical precedent speaks against it, but the main problem is that the prediction fundamentally misunderstands how capitalism works—its incentives to increase or decrease production, its principles of income allocation, and the underlying conception of merit

Do the Virtues Make You Happy?

We answer the title question with a qualified “No.” We arrive at this answer by spelling out what the proper place of the concept 'happiness' is in a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics: (1) Happiness in the sense of personal well-being has only a loose relation to virtue; it doesn't deserve any prominent place in virtue ethics. (2) Happiness in the sense of flourishing is impossible without virtue, but that doesn't imply that individual actions should aim at flourishing. (3) Instead, flourishing sets the standard of good practical reasoning; it is hardly ever the proper aim of a practical inference. This paper begins with a common (mis)interpretation of neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, on which it is a form of rational egoism. We then develop our alternative understanding against this foil

Do Rights Exist by Convention or by Nature?

I argue that all rights exist by convention. According to my definition, a right exists by convention just in case its justification appeals to the rules of a socially shared pattern of acting. I show that (i) our usual justifications for rights are circular, that (ii) a right fulfills my criterion if all possible justifications for it are circular, and that (iii) all existing philosophical justifications for rights are circular or fail. We find three non-circular alternatives in the literature, viz. justifications of rights by consequences, by autonomy or by divine commands. I show that all three alternatives fail, and I conclude that all rights exist by convention. This ontological result has a surprising and beneficial consequence. A common argument against conventionalism is that it implies cultural relativism. I finish by showing that the suggested conventionalism is incompatible with cultural relativism

Moral Rights and Social Conventions

Did we invent or discover moral rights? What would either answer entail for the duties that rights purport to create? And what would it entail for political and legal rights? The following three papers revolve around these questions. My answers exploit a property of rights that makes them very special: There is a constitutive connection between their justification and their existence. I have a right iff I am indeed justified in making certain demands, iff it is indeed true that others owe me certain duties. A theory of right therefore requires us to connect metaphysical with moral issues. “Anscombe on the Sources of Normativity” is the first systematic reconstruction of a very important discovery of hers. Rights (and also rules and promises) are self-referential: They purport to themselves be the justification of the duty that they impose; and they indeed are the justification if the purported duty exists indeed. For Anscombe, a social constructivist view of right-based duties is the only way explain this property: Rights can justify themselves, just as rules in a board game can, because they exist as part and parcel of a larger social practice. “Do Rights Exist by Convention or by Nature?” uses Anscombe’s discovery of the self-referentiality of rights to shed new light on an old debate: that between natural rights theorists and social constructivists about rights. I attempt a proof of Anscombe’s contention that rights can only exist with social practices. I also spell out what kind of universal rights are still possible within such a social constructivist framework. “Authority and Interest in the Theory of Right” applies Anscombe’s discovery to a current standoff in legal philosophy. I argue that “Will Theory,” according to which I have a right iff I have a justified claim against someone, gives the correct justification of rights, provided we modify certain details. “Interest Theory,” however, according to which I have a right iff I have a legitimate interest, seems to give the correct justification of the practices, within which rights are assigned (as opposed to any individual person’s right, as Interest Theorists claim)