Rights Play An Important Role In Limiting How People Can Be

Rights Play An Important Role In Limiting How People Can Be Treated

1. Rights play an important role in limiting how people can be treated even in the pursuit of consequences that are good, like saving lives. Discuss this limiting function of the concept of a right in relation to Australia’s mandatory detention policy. Would utilitarians and deontologists approach this question differently?

2. How does a cost-benefit analysis of public policy decisions embody a utilitarian approach to moral reasoning? How would the application of Rawls’ Difference Principle differ from the cost-benefit analysis approach? You may wish to illustrate your answer with an example.

3. Suppose that Joanne helps one needy stranger, and James helps another. Joanne does so because she reasons that the assistance she gives to the stranger does more to make the world a better place than anything else she could do at that moment. But she’s not sentimental about it and feels no particular sympathy for the stranger. James, by contrast, feels sympathy and acts at least in part on the basis of that feeling. Suppose further that their differing emotional states have no further consequences for anything in the remaining history of the world. How and why would a utilitarian and Aristotle differ in their evaluations of the two helpers?

Paper For Above instruction

The role of rights in limiting how individuals can be treated is a fundamental principle in ethical and political philosophy. Rights serve as moral boundaries that constrain the actions of others, including states and institutions, even when pursuing beneficial outcomes. This concept becomes particularly salient in controversial policies such as Australia's mandatory detention policy for asylum seekers. Examining this issue through the lenses of utilitarianism and deontology reveals contrasting approaches rooted in the priority they accord to consequences versus rights. Additionally, understanding how different moral frameworks evaluate individual acts of helping highlights core distinctions between consequentialist and virtue ethics, exemplified by utilitarian and Aristotelian perspectives.

Rights as Constraints in Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy

Australia’s mandatory detention policy requires that asylum seekers arriving irregularly be detained indefinitely without the opportunity for individualized assessment. Critics argue that such detention infringes on fundamental human rights, including the right to liberty and security of person (Human Rights Watch, 2014). From a deontological perspective, exemplified by Kantian ethics, rights are inviolable moral boundaries that must not be violated, regardless of the potential to save lives or achieve societal benefits (Kant, 1785/1993). Kantian ethics insists that individuals must be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end, thus condemning detention practices that deny liberty without due process.

In contrast, utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their overall consequences, aiming to maximize happiness and minimize suffering (Bentham, 1789). Utilitarians might justify detention if it results in greater overall societal safety and well-being, for instance, by deterring dangerous crossings or protecting national security (Miller, 2012). However, this consequentialist calculus can collide with the rights-based view since widespread detention may produce significant suffering and violate individual rights, which utilitarians must weigh against potential benefits. For instance, if the suffering of detainees outweighs gains in security, utilitarians would oppose detention, despite arguments for societal utility.

Differing Approaches: Utilitarians vs. Deontologists

The utilitarian approach is flexible and outcome-oriented, potentially justifying rights violations if the benefits are substantial. Conversely, deontologists uphold rights as inviolable moral principles, regardless of outcomes. Therefore, a deontologist is likely to oppose Australia's mandatory detention policy on the grounds that it violates inherent human rights, whereas a utilitarian might support or oppose it based on a calculation of overall societal benefits versus individual suffering. This fundamental difference underscores the importance of moral boundaries set by rights, which can act as constraints even in pursuit of morally favorable outcomes.

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Rawls’ Difference Principle

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) embodies a utilitarian approach by systematically comparing the positive and negative consequences of policy options, aiming to identify the choice that maximizes overall welfare (Boardman et al., 2018). While CBA emphasizes aggregate utility, Rawls’ Difference Principle offers an alternative moral framework rooted in liberal egalitarianism. According to Rawls, social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged in society (Rawls, 1971). Applying Rawls’ principle to public policy involves structuring society’s institutions so that disparities improve conditions for the worst-off, rather than merely maximizing total utility.

For example, consider healthcare allocation: a utilitarian CBA might recommend allocating resources where they yield the greatest overall health improvement, even if some groups benefit less. In contrast, Rawls’ Difference Principle would prioritize interventions that specifically help the marginalized, even if these do not maximize overall health outcomes—highlighting a focus on equity over aggregate welfare.

Helping Others: Utilitarian and Aristotelian Evaluations

Joanne’s act of helping a stranger purely based on assessing the practical benefits aligns with utilitarian principles, which emphasize the consequences of actions in terms of social utility. Utilitarians would commend her rational, outcome-oriented approach, as it likely results in greater overall good. Aristotle’s virtue ethics, however, emphasizes the character and intentions behind actions rather than solely their outcomes (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics). Aristotle might evaluate Joanne’s act based on the virtues displayed—such as justice, prudence, and generosity—regardless of her emotional motivation or the specific consequences.

James’ act, motivated by genuine sympathy, might be viewed by Aristotle as more virtuous because it stems from an emotionally virtuous character trait, such as compassion. The utilitarian analysis would evaluate James’s act similarly to Joanne’s in terms of outcomes—if his compassionate act produces better consequences overall. Yet, Aristotle might argue that sincerity and virtuous character are central to moral worth, making James’s act morally superior in the virtue ethics framework, despite the outcome being unaffected.

Conclusion

In sum, the concept of rights imposes essential moral boundaries—crucial in debates over policies like Australia’s mandatory detention—highlighting the tension between consequentialist and rights-based ethics. Cost-benefit analyses embody utilitarian reasoning focused on maximizing societal welfare, while Rawls’ Difference Principle emphasizes equity and improving conditions for the most disadvantaged. Evaluating individual acts of helping from utilitarian and Aristotelian perspectives underscores differing moral priorities—outcomes versus virtues—illuminating the diverse ethical frameworks that guide moral decision-making.

References

• Aristotle. (350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by R. C. Bartlett & S. D. Bartlett. University of Chicago Press.
• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press.
• Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785/1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by M. Gregor. Cambridge University Press.
• Human Rights Watch. (2014). The State of Refugee Rights in Australia. HRW Reports.
• Miller, D. (2012). Justice for Some: Law and Practice in the Inner City. Harvard University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.