MORALITY AND THE LAW: BOWERS AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

This article examines the right of privacy with emphasis on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, as this case illustrates issues that arise in the context of government interference with citizen’s actions and with the broader context of morality and the law. I argue specifically that the Supreme Court erred in its ruling on the Bowers case by failing to recognize that the moral value of autonomy in this case outweighs the right of a state to establish statutes based on the perceived moral attitudes of its constituencies. I argue generally that moral principles can inform decisions about the ordering of the right of privacy and the moral claims that aim to limit the right.     

RAWLS AND THE STATUS OF POLITICAL LIBERTY

Abstract:  In his late work, Rawls makes strong claims about the status of political liberty. These claims, if accepted, would have significant implications for the content of justice as fairness. I discuss the nature of these claims, clarifying Rawls's fair value guarantee of the political liberties and critically discussing the arguments that he and others have given for assigning special importance to the political liberties. I conclude that justice as fairness, properly understood, is not a deeply democratic conception of justice.     

THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT

We propose that individuals who are recipients or potential recipients of treatment designed to change their behavior have the right to a therapeutic environment, services whose overriding goal is personal welfare, treatment by a competent behavior analyst, programs that teach functional skills, behavioral assessment and ongoing evaluation, and the most effective treatment procedures available.     

BALANCING THE RIGHT TO HABILITATION WITH THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTIES: THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES TO EAT TOO MANY DOUGHNUTS AND TAKE A NAP

In the pursuit of efficient habilitation, many service providers exercise a great deal of control over the lives of clients with developmental disabilities. For example, service providers often choose the client's habilitative goals, determine the daily schedule, and regulate access to preferred activities. This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of allowing clients to exercise personal liberties, such as the right to choose and refuse daily activities. On one hand, poor choices on the part of the client could hinder habilitation. On the other hand, moral and legal issues arise when the client's right to choice is abridged. Recommendations are offered to protect both the right to habilitation and the freedom to choose.