RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ON THE HOME PLANET

Abstract. Earth is the home planet, right for life. But rights, a notable political category, is, unfortunately, a biologically awkward word. Humans, nonetheless, have rights to a natural environment with integrity. Humans have responsibilities to respect values in fauna and flora. Appropriate survival units include species populations and ecosystems. Increasingly the ultimate survival unit isglobal; and humans have a responsibility to the planet Earth. Human political systems are not well suited to protect life atglobal ranges. National boundaries ignore important ecologicalprocesses; national policies do not favor an equitable distribution of sustainable resources. But there are signs of hope.     

Civic engagement and the possibility of the political

During the last half a century, civil rights movements have been led by people of faith even as they have marched in different directions. Some spoke out for the status quo while others demanded a different vision of justice, some for peace and others for war, for a violence-free life for women and against it. The issues and partisans shift, particularly as the relationship between state and church, faith and politics, has varied from one country to the next. Participation is dangerous, but even more so are inaction, withdrawal, obedience. This issue of Dialog takes another look at the history, philosophy, and practice of Christians.     

A three-factor scale of attitudes toward guns

Guns figure prominently in American culture. There is, however, considerable variability in attitudes toward guns. The beliefs and feelings that comprise attitudes toward guns may well be important moderators of numerous social behaviors. For this reason, a three-dimensional attitudes scale was constructed. The first factor consists of an abstract set of beliefs concerning the right of the American public to own or not own guns. The second and third factors tap more concrete beliefs about the consequences of gun ownership. Specifically, the second factor assesses the degree to which people believe gun ownership affords protection against crime. The third factor measures the degree to which people believe guns stimulate crime. Discriminant validity of the subscales is shown by the pattern of correlations obtained with the three dimensions and various other social and personality measures. Regression analyses indicate that the subscales are uniquely predicted by different social variables. Discussion centers on the usefulness of such a measure for future research on aggression, social policy, and attitude change.     

Right-Based Morality and Hohfeld's Relations

The paper begins by defending the Hohfeldianaccount of rights (as equivalence relations) from thecharge that it cannot capture their specialsignificance, and thus cannot be used in a right-basedmoral theory. It goes on to argue that, because of amisunderstanding of this relational account, theconception of right-based morality that has emerged inrecent years has been variously flawed from theoutset. A particular form of explanatory priority waswrongly taken to be essential, and then eitherincoherently combined with equivalence, or taken to bea reason for rejecting equivalence where right-basedthinking is concerned. In fact, this form of priorityis not sufficient for establishing a right-based moraltheory. It is also not necessary, since theHohfeldian analysis can be shown to be entirelyadequate to meeting the original aims of thoseproposing this approach to ethics.     

In Defense of the Jurisdiction Theory of Rights

This essay critically examines three theories of moral rights, theBenefit, the Interest, and the Choice theories. The Interest andChoice theories attempt to explain how rights can be more robustthan seems possible on the Benefit theory. In particular, moralrights are supposed to be resistant to trade-offs to supportprincipled anti-paternalism, to constitute a distinct dimensionof morality, and to provide right holders with a range ofdiscretionary choice. I argue that these and other featuresare better yet provided by a fourth theory of moral rights, theJurisdiction theory.     

The International Significance of Human Rights

A comparative examination of four alternative ways of understandingwhat human rights are supports an institutional understanding assuggested by Article 28 of the Universal Declaration: Human rightsare weighty moral claims on any coercively imposed institutionalorder, national or international (as Article 28 confirms). Any suchorder must afford the persons on whom it is imposed secure accessto the objects of their human rights. This understanding of humanrights is broadly sharable across cultures and narrows the philosophical and practical differences between the friends ofcivil and political and the champions of social, economic, andcultural human rights. When applied to the global institutionalorder, it provides a new argument for conceiving human rights asuniversal – and a new basis for criticizing this order as tooencouraging of oppression, corruption, and poverty in the developing countries: We have a negative duty not to cooperatein the imposition of this global order if feasible reforms ofit would significantly improve the realization of human rights.     

Social Representations of Human Rights Amongst Czech University Students

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a general legislative framework for democratic societies. Studying the social representations of these basic human rights helps to explain how people understand and assess the basic rights and how these rights relate to everyday life. Over 400 Czech university students rated the 30 articles of the Declaration of Human Rights on various scales (degree of understanding, personal relevance, consequences for individual responsibility, for government, political parties, etc.). A semantic space was identified in which concepts (i.e. the Articles of the Declaration) could be located. A typology (clusters) of articles was then established within that semantic space. A factor analysis of the scales resulted in a two-dimensional solution (‘positive attitude’ and ‘personal influence’). Five clusters of assessed articles were identified within this semantic space. (© 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)     

Some ethical and legal issues in Germany involving informed consent and patenting

This paper elaborates on discussions in Germany regarding some of the ethical and legal issues in the area of the use and patenting of inventions involving human tissue. The issues discussed pertain to the benefits and problems regarding informed consent and the issue of property rights as they relate to the donation of cells and tissue. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an international conference, “The Ethics of Intellectual Property Rights and Patents,” held in Warsaw, Poland on 23–24 April, 2004.     

Property rights and genetic engineering: Developing nations at risk

Eighty percent of (commercial) genetically engineered seeds (GES) are designed only to resist herbicides. Letting farmers use more chemicals, they cut labor costs. But developing nations say GES cause food shortages, unemployment, resistant weeds, and extinction of native cultivars when “volunteers” drift nearby. While GES patents are reasonable, this paper argues many patent policies are not. The paper surveys GE technology, outlines John Locke’s classic account of property rights, and argues that current patent policies must be revised to take account of Lockean ethical constraints. After answering a key objection, it provides concrete suggestions for implementing its ethical conclusions.     

Transforming animal species: the case of ‘oncomouse’

In this paper I deal with ethical implications arising from animal biotechnology. I analyse some general questions surrounding the production of transgenic animals through a specific case study: the oncomouse. In particular, I explore ethical factors involved in the production of oncomice. This is because biologists genetically modify animals’ germ cells and refuse to modify human germ cells. I will underline how the international community has thus far justified this ‘ethical difference’. The opinions here expressed are personal and do not commit the European Commission. Maurizio Salvi is member of the Scientific Staff of the Higher Institute of Philosophy, University of Leuven. Currently he is a Scientific Officer (National Expert Detached) of the European Commission, (Directorate-General XII, Science Research and Development, Directorate B.II.3) dealing with Bioethics research.