Gewirth and Nagel :: Alan Gewirth Thomas Nagel Rights Essays

Gewirth and NagelOne difference between Alan Gewirths apology of absolutism and that offered by Thomas Nagel is that Nagel concedes that it prat be wrong to move to violate absolute prohibitions (or absolute in good orders) in order to prevent ruinous consequences whereas Gewirth does not. Explain what you regard as the most substantial advantages and disadvantages of each reservoirs position. Which one has the more compelling defense of absolutism?Rights make a space around individuals that must be respected. The study of rights is a struggle to understand how rights whitethorn be prioritized, and in what cases the interests of someone may overcome the rights of another. Gewirth and Nagel ar both asking whether there are rights which may not be overridden, even in the case where it seems that overriding them would advert some greater common good. They call these rights absolute. Gewirth is attempting to show that there are such rights, and that respecting them do es not conflict with the rights of others. Nagel, on the other hand, believes that some situations get hold of the violation of the rights of one or another, and argues that absolutism mint provide important criteria attempts for determining how to evaluate claims in such events. Gewirths conclusion rests upon a strict delineation of responsibility, so that a responsible actor can always be identified for a violation of rights, and other actors can always avoid violating anothers absolute right. This formulation appears to be too strong. It is excessively limited in that it requires the identification of an actor there are situations in which it offers us no help in evaluating right action. But, while Gewirths formulation is problematic in practice, it is powerful in that it offers a coherent, consistent defense of absolute rights.Nagel is not interested in justifying absolute rights, but in articulating actions that are prohibited. His belief is that the world is an debil e place that fear and human cruelty will always stick in difficult moral situations, and that therefore, establishing criteria to deal with these less than ideal situations is essential. He also argues, unlike Gewirth, that one can be confronted with two choices, both of whose outcomes are bad, and for both of which one bears responsibility. Thus, he asks, when both respecting and violating an absolute right are wrong, what is the morally right thing to do?