Bioethics, Volume 36, Issue 3, Page 318-327, March 2022.

This project is, in part, motivated by my contention that one cannot adequately answer the question regarding the proper justification for human rights until one has answered the metaphysical question regarding the fundamental nature of human rights and the ontological question regarding the proper status of human rights. I offer a sustained analysis of metaphysical, ontological, and justificatory questions regarding human rights with the purpose of illustrating the point that theories that fail to engage in such analyses are inadequate. In (...) particular, this essay argues that Michael Ignatieff’s theory of human rights, as articulated in Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, is philosophically inadequate because it fails to connect his justificatory arguments for human rights with metaphysical and ontological conceptions of and arguments for human rights. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Louis Pojman fails to justify his conception of a moderate cosmopolitan world government. I illustrate this by highlighting the fact that Pojman fails to articulate adequate justifications for his Principle of Humanity (POH) and Principle of Equality (POE). This is problematic because the POH and POE ground his conception of human rights, which, in turn, grounds his conception of a moderate cosmopolitan world government. Hence, since he fails to justify the POH and the POE, (...) I conclude that his conception of a cosmopolitan world government ultimately fails. But, before I launch this attack on Pojman, I offer substantial philosophical analyses of Hobbes's arguments for the state of nature, human rights, and the establishment of the commonwealth. I do so because Hobbes provides the philosophical basis for Pojman's philosophy of world government. I show that by understanding the philosophical problems inherent in Hobbes we gain better understanding of the philosophical problems at the basis of Pojman. (shrink)

In this project, I present a combination of philosophical and political perspectives on universal human rights and the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court in which to prosecute the most egregious violations of universal human rights. I then present William F. Jasper's reasons why the United States ought not ratify the permanent International Criminal Court. Contrary to the Jasper's pragmatic objections, I argue in favor of the International Criminal Court. I illustrate that the International Criminal Court will have protective (...) measures designed to prevent the political abuses of justice that worry Jasper. When working properly, these protective measures will satisfy Jasper's pragmatic concerns. In addition, I offer principled reasons why the United States ought not abandon its longer history of supporting the establishment of an international criminal court. I conclude that Jasper's pragmatic concerns do not justify the rejection of the International Criminal Court by the United States. (shrink)

Like many, Michael Ignatieff recognizes that balancing civil liberties and national security in times of emergency seems to require us to infringe upon the liberties of some in order to preserve the liberties of others. In these cases, he argues we ought only to infringe upon civil liberties in light of adversarial review, placing strict limitations on our actions, using sunset clauses, and fully accepting that our actions will sometimes result in immoral behavior. He claims that this approach to balancing (...) civil liberties and national security in times of emergency is superior to those offered by staunch pragmatists and strict libertarians because it encompasses the benefits and avoids the pitfalls of both. I find, however, Ignatieff’s approach to be problematic because it fails to take seriously important substantive measures for achieving justice in times of emergency. I conclude that Ignatieff’s procedural measures coupled with the substantive measures of truthfulness, faithfulness, and solidarity result in a superior policy for balancing civil liberties and national security in times of emergency because they ensure the cases of those accused of wrongdoing meet the pedigree tests for procedural and substantive justice, even in times of emergency. (shrink)

In this paper, I offer substantial philosophical and pragmatic analyses of slavery, apprenticeships, and segregation in the United States and British West Indies. I do so to illustrate the extent to which American and British philosophy, politics, law, and economics were entwined with the oppression of African-Americans and African-Caribbeans. I argue that, as the institution of slavery collapsed and abolitionists began calling for reparations, judges and politicians ignored the claims of abolitionists and thereby perverted justice. As a result, we now (...) have the debts of slavery, apprenticeships, and segregation to settle. I conclude that as long as we fail to settle these debts we are complicit in allowing their perversions of justice to continue. For this reason, I argue in favor of granting reparations to African-Americans and African-Caribbeans. (shrink)