The pdf comprises excerpts from author's book "Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide" (Routledg... more The pdf comprises excerpts from author's book "Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide" (Routledge, 2024). The book addresses universal human rights as moral mandates – rights to justice that all persons have by virtue of their humanity alone. These are not the legal rights of statutes and treaties, but moral rights of the kind Gandhi, King, and Mandela invoked to oppose unjust laws. All such rights presuppose three claims: (1) that some duties of justice apply universally, (2) that all human beings have equal moral significance, and (3) that states must protect or serve certain individual interests regardless of the societal impact of doing so.
Can these three premises be justified? Is the human equality claim, for example, rationally supportable, or is it no less faith-based than hierarchical doctrines like caste? This book explores the case for these foundational claims along with other philosophical controversies pertaining to human rights. Because these issues lie at the heart of moral and political philosophy, readers will also obtain a broad appreciation of these disciplines and their leading theorists, including Mill, Kant, Rawls, Sandel, Nozick, Rorty, and many others. Written in concise, jargon-free language, this book presents a high-relief map of the philosophical issues surrounding human rights.
ABSTRACT A state’s criminal justice system must serve two masters: it must protect the security o... more ABSTRACT A state’s criminal justice system must serve two masters: it must protect the security of persons and property, and it must respect the liberties of the people. It is bound by both duties and must strike the morally correct balance between them. In this paper, I discuss some principles that I believe must be elements in that balance. I defend these principles as a necessary part of any effective, liberty-respecting criminal justice system; describe the extreme departure from those principles in the United States; and note some recent interest in reforms that, should they take root, could mark the beginning of an American transition towards a safer, less incarcerated and more liberty-affirming country.
In a recent article, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that capital punishment is morally r... more In a recent article, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that capital punishment is morally required if it will deter more killings than it inflicts. They claim that the state's duty is to minimize the incidence of murder, and that recent deterrence research shows that state executions, even if deemed murders themselves, can do so. If these findings are true, they argue, the state is morally obligated to undertake such "life-life tradeoffs." The logic of Sunstein and Vermeule's argument justifies not only state executions, but any state-perpetrated injustice that promises to reduce the incidence of similar injustices overall, as the authors acknowledge in a comment about torture. Recently such lesser evil arguments have indeed been invoked to justify state torture, detention without trial, and other human rights violations. In this essay, I identify problems that are common to all of these arguments, as illustrated by the well-developed example Sunstein and Vermeule have provided. My aim is to demonstrate that, however valid the lesser evil approach may be in some domains, it fails when invoked to defend state violations of the right to life and other fundamental human rights.
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, 2011
This article considers the moral claim that all persons have a human right to the material necess... more This article considers the moral claim that all persons have a human right to the material necessities of life, and that governments are obligated to assure them to individuals who have no other way to obtain them. It assesses that claim by exploring three questions. First, does the redistribution potentially required by even the most minimal economic right violate other rights, as libertarians say it does? Second, if redistribution is not barred by libertarian constraints, is a state obligated to provide a safety net against severe deprivation, or may it elect whether to do so? And finally, if there is a human right to the necessities of life, what are its parameters? I conclude that that there is a human right to material necessities, but that typical formulations of the right misconstrue it. Economic rights are commonly described and promulgated as individual rights analogous to liberty rights. The arguments herein endeavor to show that, on the contrary, an economic right makes moral and practical sense only when framed as a group right by which the worst-off group collectively has a claim to essential resources that, with limited exceptions, prevails over any alternative, non-essential individual or societal use.
This paper has been revised is now incorporated within Appendix B in the author's book Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024).
According to the human rights claim, every human being has a moral status that other entities--li... more According to the human rights claim, every human being has a moral status that other entities--like rocks or plants--do not. No matter how weak, despised or criminal, every person is owed consideration and, with regard to her most vital interests, deference. On one account, human beings count morally in this way because they are created in the image of God, and thus the human rights claim is necessarily a religious one. This paper considers whether there is an alternative secular explanation of what it is about every human being that demands moral respect--and if so, whether this attribute is shared with other beings as well. After considering three possible secular accounts--derived respectively from the intuitionist, utilitarian and Kantian traditions--the paper proposes a fourth, alternative theory according to which all sentient beings count morally. As to human beings in particular, the paper concludes that they are morally entitled to certain rights simply in virtue of their interests as sentient beings, and others in virtue of additional morally relevant characteristics peculiar to human beings, such as rationality and self-consciousness.
This paper has been revised and is now incorporated within Part II ("Human Equality and Moral Hierarchies") of the author's book Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024).
ABSTRACT In a recent article, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that capital punishment is ... more ABSTRACT In a recent article, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that capital punishment is morally required if it will deter more killings than it inflicts. They claim that the state's duty is to minimize murders, and that recent deterrence research shows that state executions, even if deemed murders themselves, can do so. If these findings are true, they argue, the state is morally obligated to undertake such "life-life tradeoffs."The logic of Sunstein and Vermeule's argument justifies not only state executions, but any state-perpetrated injustice that promises to reduce the incidence of similar injustices overall. Recently such lesser evil arguments have been invoked to justify state torture, detention without trial, and other human rights violations. In this essay, I identify problems that are common to all of these arguments. My aim is to demonstrate that, however valid the lesser evil approach may be in some domains, it fails when invoked to defend state violations of the right to life and other fundamental human rights.
... reformers with whom I worked to enact versions the model law suggested herein, including Mich... more ... reformers with whom I worked to enact versions the model law suggested herein, including Michael Cutler, Dick Evans, David Fratello, Ethan Nadelmann, Martin Rosenthal, Steve Saloom, Rob Stewart, Carl Valvo, Sam Vagenas ... Joel Stein, The New Politics of Pot, TIME, Nov. ...
Abstract: Although Americans are arguably more committed than ever to the ideal of universal educ... more Abstract: Although Americans are arguably more committed than ever to the ideal of universal education, the drug war has effectively withdrawn this commitment from many teenagers and young adults who are most at risk. It has done so in several related ways that we explore in this article. First, the drug war has combined with public school zero-tolerance policies to remove tens of thousands of adolescents from their public schools. Second, denial of higher education has been adopted as an additional punishment for drug offenders. Under the Drug Free Student Loans Act of 1998, students who have ever been convicted of a drug offense are either temporarily or permanently ineligible for federal college loans and grants. This law has led to the withdrawal from school of tens of thousands of college students who have no alternative means of paying for their education. Third, drug offenders in prison have seen their access to higher education effectively terminated by a federal law that ex...
The pdf comprises excerpts from author's book "Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide" (Routledg... more The pdf comprises excerpts from author's book "Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide" (Routledge, 2024). The book addresses universal human rights as moral mandates – rights to justice that all persons have by virtue of their humanity alone. These are not the legal rights of statutes and treaties, but moral rights of the kind Gandhi, King, and Mandela invoked to oppose unjust laws. All such rights presuppose three claims: (1) that some duties of justice apply universally, (2) that all human beings have equal moral significance, and (3) that states must protect or serve certain individual interests regardless of the societal impact of doing so.
Can these three premises be justified? Is the human equality claim, for example, rationally supportable, or is it no less faith-based than hierarchical doctrines like caste? This book explores the case for these foundational claims along with other philosophical controversies pertaining to human rights. Because these issues lie at the heart of moral and political philosophy, readers will also obtain a broad appreciation of these disciplines and their leading theorists, including Mill, Kant, Rawls, Sandel, Nozick, Rorty, and many others. Written in concise, jargon-free language, this book presents a high-relief map of the philosophical issues surrounding human rights.
ABSTRACT A state’s criminal justice system must serve two masters: it must protect the security o... more ABSTRACT A state’s criminal justice system must serve two masters: it must protect the security of persons and property, and it must respect the liberties of the people. It is bound by both duties and must strike the morally correct balance between them. In this paper, I discuss some principles that I believe must be elements in that balance. I defend these principles as a necessary part of any effective, liberty-respecting criminal justice system; describe the extreme departure from those principles in the United States; and note some recent interest in reforms that, should they take root, could mark the beginning of an American transition towards a safer, less incarcerated and more liberty-affirming country.
In a recent article, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that capital punishment is morally r... more In a recent article, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that capital punishment is morally required if it will deter more killings than it inflicts. They claim that the state's duty is to minimize the incidence of murder, and that recent deterrence research shows that state executions, even if deemed murders themselves, can do so. If these findings are true, they argue, the state is morally obligated to undertake such "life-life tradeoffs." The logic of Sunstein and Vermeule's argument justifies not only state executions, but any state-perpetrated injustice that promises to reduce the incidence of similar injustices overall, as the authors acknowledge in a comment about torture. Recently such lesser evil arguments have indeed been invoked to justify state torture, detention without trial, and other human rights violations. In this essay, I identify problems that are common to all of these arguments, as illustrated by the well-developed example Sunstein and Vermeule have provided. My aim is to demonstrate that, however valid the lesser evil approach may be in some domains, it fails when invoked to defend state violations of the right to life and other fundamental human rights.
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, 2011
This article considers the moral claim that all persons have a human right to the material necess... more This article considers the moral claim that all persons have a human right to the material necessities of life, and that governments are obligated to assure them to individuals who have no other way to obtain them. It assesses that claim by exploring three questions. First, does the redistribution potentially required by even the most minimal economic right violate other rights, as libertarians say it does? Second, if redistribution is not barred by libertarian constraints, is a state obligated to provide a safety net against severe deprivation, or may it elect whether to do so? And finally, if there is a human right to the necessities of life, what are its parameters? I conclude that that there is a human right to material necessities, but that typical formulations of the right misconstrue it. Economic rights are commonly described and promulgated as individual rights analogous to liberty rights. The arguments herein endeavor to show that, on the contrary, an economic right makes moral and practical sense only when framed as a group right by which the worst-off group collectively has a claim to essential resources that, with limited exceptions, prevails over any alternative, non-essential individual or societal use.
This paper has been revised is now incorporated within Appendix B in the author's book Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024).
According to the human rights claim, every human being has a moral status that other entities--li... more According to the human rights claim, every human being has a moral status that other entities--like rocks or plants--do not. No matter how weak, despised or criminal, every person is owed consideration and, with regard to her most vital interests, deference. On one account, human beings count morally in this way because they are created in the image of God, and thus the human rights claim is necessarily a religious one. This paper considers whether there is an alternative secular explanation of what it is about every human being that demands moral respect--and if so, whether this attribute is shared with other beings as well. After considering three possible secular accounts--derived respectively from the intuitionist, utilitarian and Kantian traditions--the paper proposes a fourth, alternative theory according to which all sentient beings count morally. As to human beings in particular, the paper concludes that they are morally entitled to certain rights simply in virtue of their interests as sentient beings, and others in virtue of additional morally relevant characteristics peculiar to human beings, such as rationality and self-consciousness.
This paper has been revised and is now incorporated within Part II ("Human Equality and Moral Hierarchies") of the author's book Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024).
ABSTRACT In a recent article, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that capital punishment is ... more ABSTRACT In a recent article, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that capital punishment is morally required if it will deter more killings than it inflicts. They claim that the state's duty is to minimize murders, and that recent deterrence research shows that state executions, even if deemed murders themselves, can do so. If these findings are true, they argue, the state is morally obligated to undertake such "life-life tradeoffs."The logic of Sunstein and Vermeule's argument justifies not only state executions, but any state-perpetrated injustice that promises to reduce the incidence of similar injustices overall. Recently such lesser evil arguments have been invoked to justify state torture, detention without trial, and other human rights violations. In this essay, I identify problems that are common to all of these arguments. My aim is to demonstrate that, however valid the lesser evil approach may be in some domains, it fails when invoked to defend state violations of the right to life and other fundamental human rights.
... reformers with whom I worked to enact versions the model law suggested herein, including Mich... more ... reformers with whom I worked to enact versions the model law suggested herein, including Michael Cutler, Dick Evans, David Fratello, Ethan Nadelmann, Martin Rosenthal, Steve Saloom, Rob Stewart, Carl Valvo, Sam Vagenas ... Joel Stein, The New Politics of Pot, TIME, Nov. ...
Abstract: Although Americans are arguably more committed than ever to the ideal of universal educ... more Abstract: Although Americans are arguably more committed than ever to the ideal of universal education, the drug war has effectively withdrawn this commitment from many teenagers and young adults who are most at risk. It has done so in several related ways that we explore in this article. First, the drug war has combined with public school zero-tolerance policies to remove tens of thousands of adolescents from their public schools. Second, denial of higher education has been adopted as an additional punishment for drug offenders. Under the Drug Free Student Loans Act of 1998, students who have ever been convicted of a drug offense are either temporarily or permanently ineligible for federal college loans and grants. This law has led to the withdrawal from school of tens of thousands of college students who have no alternative means of paying for their education. Third, drug offenders in prison have seen their access to higher education effectively terminated by a federal law that ex...
Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024) addresses universal human rights as mor... more Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024) addresses universal human rights as moral mandates – rights to justice that all persons have by virtue of their humanity alone. These are not the legal rights of statutes and treaties, but moral rights of the kind Gandhi, King, and Mandela invoked to oppose unjust laws. All such rights presuppose three claims: (1) that some duties of justice apply universally, (2) that all human beings have equal moral significance, and (3) that states must protect or serve certain individual interests regardless of the societal impact of doing so.
Can these three premises be justified? Is the human equality claim, for example, rationally supportable, or is it no less faith-based than hierarchical doctrines like caste? This book explores the case for these foundational claims along with other philosophical controversies pertaining to human rights. Because these issues lie at the heart of moral and political philosophy, readers will also obtain a broad appreciation of these disciplines and their leading theorists, including Mill, Kant, Rawls, Sandel, Nozick, Rorty, and many others. Written in concise, jargon-free language, this book presents a high-relief map of the philosophical issues surrounding human rights.
The downloadable pdf is excerpted from the introduction to the book.
Uploads
Papers by Eric Blumenson
Can these three premises be justified? Is the human equality claim, for example, rationally supportable, or is it no less faith-based than hierarchical doctrines like caste? This book explores the case for these foundational claims along with other philosophical controversies pertaining to human rights. Because these issues lie at the heart of moral and political philosophy, readers will also obtain a broad appreciation of these disciplines and their leading theorists, including Mill, Kant, Rawls, Sandel, Nozick, Rorty, and many others. Written in concise, jargon-free language, this book presents a high-relief map of the philosophical issues surrounding human rights.
This paper has been revised is now incorporated within Appendix B in the author's book Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024).
This paper has been revised and is now incorporated within Part II ("Human Equality and Moral Hierarchies") of the author's book Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024).
Can these three premises be justified? Is the human equality claim, for example, rationally supportable, or is it no less faith-based than hierarchical doctrines like caste? This book explores the case for these foundational claims along with other philosophical controversies pertaining to human rights. Because these issues lie at the heart of moral and political philosophy, readers will also obtain a broad appreciation of these disciplines and their leading theorists, including Mill, Kant, Rawls, Sandel, Nozick, Rorty, and many others. Written in concise, jargon-free language, this book presents a high-relief map of the philosophical issues surrounding human rights.
This paper has been revised is now incorporated within Appendix B in the author's book Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024).
This paper has been revised and is now incorporated within Part II ("Human Equality and Moral Hierarchies") of the author's book Why Human Rights? A Philosophical Guide (Routledge, 2024).
Can these three premises be justified? Is the human equality claim, for example, rationally supportable, or is it no less faith-based than hierarchical doctrines like caste? This book explores the case for these foundational claims along with other philosophical controversies pertaining to human rights. Because these issues lie at the heart of moral and political philosophy, readers will also obtain a broad appreciation of these disciplines and their leading theorists, including Mill, Kant, Rawls, Sandel, Nozick, Rorty, and many others. Written in concise, jargon-free language, this book presents a high-relief map of the philosophical issues surrounding human rights.
The downloadable pdf is excerpted from the introduction to the book.