Study Guide for Final Exam copy

docx

School

Carleton University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2103A

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MinisterWaterBuffalo17297

Philosophy 2103A: Philosophy of Human Rights Study Guide for the Final Examination Winter Term, 2021 Instructions The final examination for Philosophy 2103A is scheduled for April 25/26. It is a three- hour exam, but you will have a 24 hour period within which to write it. (Once you begin, you have 3 hours to complete and submit it.) On the exam you will be asked to answer a number of questions (about 5 or 6) all of which will be selected from the list of questions below. (There will be some choice but not much.) Each of your answers should be approximately 300-400 words in length, though some of your answers may be a little longer, others a little shorter, depending on the question you are answering. The final exam counts for 40% of your overall grade for the course. List of Questions 1) In class we discussed a number of different arguments or considerations both for and against the existence of a human right to democracy. With which side in this debate do you agree? Support your position by argument. 2) Explain briefly, but clearly, what the "ticking time bomb” argument is and then describe three objections against it (other than the so-called standard argument). How convincing are these objections? Support your assessment by argument. 3) Explain in detail what was referred to in class as the “standard argument” in favour of imposing a total legal ban on the use of torture and then discuss how convincing it is Torture can be defined as the intentional infliction of extreme physical and mental pain or suffering on a defenceless, non-consenting person or animal. The standard argument in Favour of imposing a total legal ban on the use of torture is that the use of torture in extreme situations like the “ ticking time bomb” scenario should be ignored while passing legislation regarding the use of torture. Instead, the routine use of torture in less extreme situations is what we should be concerned about, and so a total ban on torture should be introduced to block the threat of the slippery slope that exists to the frequent or routine use of torture in interrogation. The ticking time bomb argument is seen as a red herring- something that would occur very rarely, and so should be considered irrelevant to the legal debate on the use of torture. This argument states that “normal” everyday situations should be considered while setting up rolled regarding torture and not catastrophic situations, seeing as the law is not an effective instrument for controlling these kinds of situations, which makes it impossible to legislate for. Therefore, torture should be banned completely, since it is a very bad thing. According to John Miller’s view on the standard argument for a total ban on torture, it may be reasonable to use torture in a scenario like the ticking time bomb, because this is a catastrophic situation and so the legal ban would not apply to it.This argument is not entirely convincing for the following reasons: First of all, this argument is not acceptable in a

democracy as the reasoning behind having a total ban on torture is that it would be permissible to use in extreme situations, which would be kept secret. However, in a democracy a policy has to be openly discussed and agreed upon by society as a whole.The argument is also dishonest at it involves publicly declaring the ban of torture while secretly saying that it can be used in extreme situations. Also, with this argument, intelligence workers would have to be trained to ignore the legal ban on torture in extreme scenarios. This can become very problematic as it may lessen their respect for the law and encourage them to resort to the routine use of torture. Finally, the arguments Miller presents are not really arguments in Favour of a total ban on torture, as the premise of his argument is that torture can be used in the ticking time bomb situation, which is contradictory. It would be better to legally ban the use of torture and also OPENLY acknowledge and accept that intelligence services and law enforcement agencies might have to use torture (extreme interrogation techniques) in very extreme situations. This is being open and honest about the extreme exception to the use of torture, which would make it more publicly acceptable. 4) According to the Convention on Torture, torture should never be used or permitted by a country under any conditions whatsoever. Do you agree or disagree with this categorical rejection of torture? Why or why not? 5) How does Canada, through our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, deal with the issue of whether there should be a total legal ban against the use of torture? Do you think this is, all things considered, a reasonable and justified approach to take? Defend your view by argument. 6) Describe in detail how genocide is defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide? (For the purpose of this question, just describe the definition, don’t evaluate it.) 7) Describe clearly, but concisely, four serious objections that have been raised against the definition of genocide provided by the 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide. (Just describe the objections, don’t evaluate them.) According to the 1948 U.N.Convention on Genocide, Genocide can be defined as either killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group or forcibly transferring children of a group to another group, with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.Four serious objections that have been raised against the 1948 U.N. Convention of Genocide’s definition of genocide include the following: The question of what kinds of groups the definition applies to and why just those groups? The question of whether the definition is too narrow, as it does not include other groups than those mentioned, the question of whether genocide is wrong by definition and lastly, the question of whether a concept of genocide is needed at all. The first objection questions why only national, ethnic, racial and religious groups are mentioned in the definition and why other groups like soccer players, electricians, teachers are not mentioned. The second objection questions why the groups mentioned in the convention’s definition that 2

can be victims of genocide are restricted to just cultural groups and not other groups like political groups, groups based on profession, sexual orientation and so on. The third objection focuses on the intention behind the convention’s definition, which seems to imply that it is wrong by definition. The fourth objection argues whether a concept of genocide is really needed, as a concept of genocide is not needed to tell us that mass killings are bad or that forcibly removing people from their traditional lands is a very bad thing to do. 8) What groups does the U.N. Convention on Genocide restrict the crime of genocide to? Is it clear why it is restricted to these groups only? Do you think the crime of genocide should be restricted only to these groups? Defend your view by argument. According to the 1948 U.N.Convention on Genocide, Genocide can be defined as either killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group or forcibly transferring children of a group to another group, with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.The U.N. Convention on genocide restricts the crime of genocide to national, ethnical, racial and religious groups. Their definition does not include other groups like political groups. Professional groups and so on as potential victims of genocide. I agree that genocides should be restricted only to cultural groups as a concept is needed that specifically applies to attempts made to harm or destroy these groups because of their importance to humans. These groups provide individuals with a home, a sense of belonging and identity and gives them a connection to their history, past generations and futures generations. Despite the fact that mass murder is wrong no matter the group that gets destroyed, destroying a cultural group is seen as a greater evil as it causes special types of harm. This makes it a special type of crime and so should be condemned in a special way. Other groups like athletic groups and professional groups have also not been victims of targeted mass murder and other attempts at destruction so often throughout history. No one really tried to destroy groups of electricians or philosophers, so there is a higher level of threat to the well being of cultural groups than other groups. Although racial groups, though part of the conventions definition are not classified as cultural groups, they have also been the target of mass killings and discrimination since the beginning of time which justifies the convention adding them to the list of groups that genocide is restricted to. Even though some political groups like the LGBTQ have also been subject to prejudice, bigotry and so on, I believe the persecution of groups like this should is a different form of persecution from trying to destroy cultures and should have another term that describes this type of persecution. 9) In his paper on genocide (Reading 44), philosopher Paul Boghossian comes to the conclusion that perhaps we really don’t need a concept of genocide at all (on the grounds that it is enough to have laws against mass murder). Do you agree or disagree? Defend your view by argument. 10) What are Hilary Charlesworth’s reasons in Reading 55 for thinking that the human rights movement has not only failed to adequately protect the rights of women, but has actually discriminated against women? (Just explain her reasons, don’t evaluate them.) 11) Do you think that the many abuses to which women around the world have been, and continue to be, subjected (for example, domestic battery, sexual harassment, female 3

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

circumcision, and honour killings, among others) justify introducing a new group human right (or rights) for women? Why or why not? A group right can be defined as rights held by a group as a group rather than by its members severally. Women have been 12) In class Thomas Pogge’s arguments were presented for thinking that the poverty of developing countries around the world should be seen as a violation of the negative human right to development. Describe first what is meant by a “negative human right” in this context, and then describe Pogge’s arguments as accurately as you can. 13) How plausible are Thomas Pogge’s arguments, referred to in question 12, that the poverty of developing countries around the world today should be seen as a human rights violation? Defend your assessment of Pogge’s views in detail by argument. The right to development generally refers to economic development at a level that makes a wide range of benefits such as social welfare, elderly care, education and health care services possible. A negative right to development according to Thomas Pogge is that people in developing countries have a right against richer countries to have them not take steps that would prevent poorer countries from developing economically and in other ways.According to him, developed countries are in fact violating this negative right by maintaining an international system that counts yes to oppress poorer countries and erects barriers that makes their development extremely different to nearly impossible. Pogge argues that the active violation of the rights of developed countries is achieved through a repressive global order that involves: A history of violence and oppression from the colonial era, the exclusion of developed countries from their own natural resources without any form of compensation and an oppressive international order of shared institutions. I agree with Pogge on his argument that all nations have a negative right to development. However, his argument is unclear as to whether the correlation between the international order and the cause of global poverty is empirically correct. The lack of development and poverty of developing countries leads to certain harms like people living in extreme poverty, infants dying due to lack of basic healthcare and so on but do these harms constitute human rights violations? A casual analysis of human rights violations is that In other for a harm to be classified as a human rights violation, it has to accurately and correctly be seen as the effect of the fact that the individual affected does not have the protections afforded by a morally adequate and effective state.Developing countries would fall under a failed state, where the formal structure acknowledges human rights and officials also refrain from violating these human rights. However these states are so weak due to extreme poverty and underdevelopment that prevents them from being able to provide protection for its people against harms such as malnutrition and diseases. The poverty experienced in these states is a casual consequence of the fact that they lack an effective state to perform all it’s required functions. So, there is really no difference between the poverty experienced in a failed state and that experienced in an immoral, tyrannical or passive state, and so would be considered a human rights 4

violation. The casual analysis of human rights definition applies to a case where officials of the state blatantly abuse and persecuted its people the same way it applies to a case where a child dies from a disease because they were not provided proper vaccination against the disease. In these two cases, the harm caused is a casual consequence of the absence of an effective and morally adequate state, and so both cases can be seen as human rights violations. The international community and developed countries, however, have an obligation to do what they can to prevent harms like children dying from not being vaccinated, as it would be a moral wrong not to. This obligation does not just fall on developed countries that are directly responsible for causing these harms as Pogge argues, but on every developed country regardless of whether they are the cause or not. 14) If you were writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would you include in it a right against discrimination on the basis of identifiable characteristics, such as religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Why or why not? Does the UDHR, as it is, include such a right? 15) Describe briefly, but clearly, what (so-called) “religious freedom” laws are, and then discuss in detail whether they are discriminatory and so should not be permitted. Discrimination can be defined as the act of treating people unfairly, unequally, unjustly or in a disadvantageous way because of their social status or because they are members of or are believed to be members of a certain group. Religious freedom is the lack of interference from the government or any individual in a person’s religion choice and the choice of religious practices they wish to engage in. In other words, It is the ability of a person to choose, declare and practice their religious beliefs openly without fear or hindrance as long as those practices do not violate or interfere with the legitimate rights of others. Religious freedom laws are laws that make it legal for owners of small businesses to refuse to service certain individuals whose lifestyle choices do not align with their religious beliefs. However providing service to an individual whose lifestyle is incompatible with one’s religious beliefs does not equate to approving of the person’s choices. This does not also hinder or obstruct the practice of one’s own religion. Arguments in favour of religious freedom laws are used as a weapon for blanket discrimination. For instance, a Christian photographer refusing to photograph a gay couple’s wedding, on the basis that his religion does not condone same sex marriages is not only discriminating against the couple but also mentally and emotionally abusing them. Refusing to photograph the gay couple’s marriage in the name of religious freedom means anyone can, in the name of religious freedom, refuse to interact with LGBTQ people in any way whatsoever. This would mean that it would be possible to ban them from shopping from stores or prevent them from taking taxi rides in the name of religious freedom. The definition of religious freedom, however, is the ability to choose and practice any religion of one’s choice without interference from the government or any individual, PROVIDED THAT THOSE PRACTICES DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS OF OTHERS! Religious freedom laws are therefore discriminatory and should not be permitted! 16) Many states in the United States are currently passing laws that impose restrictions on voting; for example, laws that abolish Sunday voting, or laws that make it more difficult to vote by mail. Do you think these laws should be regarded as human rights violations? Support your 5

view by argument. (You may need to do a little online research to get clearer about these laws.) 17) Identify something that you feel is a human right in the moral sense (and therefore should also be a human right in the legal sense) but which is not included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Explain in detail why it merits, or deserves to be accorded, this very special status of being a human right. 6

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version