Moral Rights Argument in Jeremy Waldron’s “The Right to Do Wrong”


Add to cart
Essay #: 067455
Total text length is 14,159 characters (approximately 9.8 pages).

Excerpts from the Paper

The beginning:
Moral Rights Argument in Jeremy Waldron’s "The Right to Do Wrong"
In “A Right to Do Wrong,” Jeremy Waldron argues that “an individual may have a moral right to do something that is, from the moral point of view, wrong” (21). He gives a number of examples of varying moral significance: a man refuses to give a stranger the time of day when he asks; antiwar activists organize a demonstration near a cenotaph service on Remembrance Sunday; a biblical fundamentalist refuses to consider evidence of the fossil record. In these examples, and in similar cases – for the sake of argument – “the action in question is morally wrong, but nevertheless it is an action that the agent in question has a moral right to do” (22). It often comes to pass in these...
The end:
..... purport to believe that certain actions are wrong that I myself perform” (30). It seems in this case one might have a moral right to choose not to interfere with the white supremacists, and yet it would be morally wrong to choose not to do so. It would, in fact, be morally wrong not to interfere with their activities in some way – a counter-protest, counter-propaganda, or public denouncement of their views. Failure to interfere, in many quite notable instances, has resulted in wrong actions groups have the right to commit snowballing into direct and flagrant violations of legal rights, human rights, and the rights of others to not to have their rights violated.
Works Cited
Waldron, Jeremy. “A Right to Do Wrong.” Ethics. 92.1 (1981): 21-39.