No description available.

That police have special moral obligations to protect others is an important moral consideration which is largely absent from discourse about the moral permissibility of police killings of civilians in self-defence. I argue that police officers, at least when acting ex officio, face a special justificatory burden such that the set of conditions under which a police officer may permissibly kill a civilian in self-defence is more tightly constrained than the set of conditions under which a civilian may kill a fellow civilian in self-defence. In other words, police officers' right to kill in self-defence is attenuated by their special moral obligation to protect others. I provide three arguments for this claim. First, police have a special obligation to protect others, even at risk to themselves. Thus, there are some situations in which, compared to a civilian, an officer must tolerate an elevated level of risk of harm to herself before she is justified in resorting to defensive harm. Second, police have a derivative obligation to minimise imposing harm on those whom they have undertaken to protect. It is a greater wrong to harm those to whom one has special moral duties. Thus, compared to the civilian, the police officer must give greater moral weight to the possibility that she is facing an innocent or non-responsible threat. The third argument rests on the view that the right to self-defence derives from the right protect oneself. I show that the special moral obligations of police officers attenuate this right and, derivatively, attenuate their right to self-defence as well. / Master of Arts / Discussions about the morality of police killings of civilians in self-defence lack an important consideration; they fail to take into account the fact that police have special moral obligations to protect others. I argue that this special obligation interferes with police officer’s self-defence rights. Because of this, the set of conditions under which it is morally permissible for a police officer kill a civilian in self-defence is more tightly constrained than the set of conditions under which it is morally permissible for a civilian may kill a fellow civilian in self-defence. I provide three arguments for this claim. First, police have a special obligation to protect others, even at risk to themselves. Because of this, there are some situations in which, compared to a civilian, an officer must tolerate an elevated level of risk of harm to herself before she is justified in resorting to defensive harm. Second, police have an obligation to minimise imposing harm on those whom they have undertaken to protect. This obligation is derived from police officers’ obligation to protect others, because it is a greater wrong to harm those to whom one has special moral duties. Thus, compared to the civilian, the police officer must give greater moral weight to the possibility that she is facing an innocent or non-responsible threatener (that is, an individual who threatens harm but who is either innocent, or is not responsible for the threat that they pose). The third argument rests on the view that the right to self-defence derives from the right protect oneself. I show that the special moral obligations of police officers attenuate this right and, derivatively, attenuate their right to self-defence as well.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The distinction between treatment and enhancement is often considered to be a morally significant boundary, which, at the very least, marks the limits of our moral obligations. This conviction holds despite the fact that treatment and enhancement are situated along a continuum of interventions that are directed towards the improvement of human functioning. The distinction between these two sorts of interventions is based upon a notion of normative normality, which suggests that we are morally obligated to provide interventions which are directed toward the achievement of normal functioning, but that no obligation exists to improve functioning beyond this point. This dissertation will subject this position to critique by examining the constitution of normal functioning, and by suggesting that this kind of functioning cannot operate as a normative standard which determines the limits of our moral obligations. The moral desirability which we attribute to the achievement of normal functioning is based upon the independent ethical imperative to promote the possibilities for well-being of moral agents. This motivation, however, equally suggests that we will be obligated to provide certain kinds of enhancement interventions which will be likely to promote the welfare interests of moral agents, when these become available. This argument also implies that the development of enhancement technologies will require us to rethink our ethical conception of harmful non-benefits. We currently think of the non-provision of medical treatment and some environmental enhancements, such as education, as harmful to the extent that state intervention is justified to rectify this. We recognise that such non-provision, and the resultant failure to promote the welfare interests of moral agents, where such promotion is possible, harms persons by putting them in a worse position than they could have been in, with regards to their chances of leading a good life. The new technological possibilities offered by the prospect of genetic enhancement mean that we might soon have a better alternative, in terms of our chances of leading a good life, to the level of functioning that we have thus far been able to achieve. This implies that the non-provision of these enhancements would be harmful to the extent that intervention to bring about this provision would be justified. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die onderskeid tussen behandeling (“treatment”) en verbetering (“enhancement”) word dikwels geag 'n skeiding daar te stel wat van morele belang is, in soverre dit ten minste, die perke van ons morele verpligtinge afbaken. Hierdie oortuiging geld ten spyte van die feit dat behandeling en verbetering op „n kontinuum van ingrype wat op die verbetering van menslike funksionering gerig is, geleë is. Die onderskeid tussen hierdie twee tipes ingrype is gebaseer op 'n bepaalde begrip van normatiewe normaliteit, wat suggereer dat ons moreel verplig is om ingrype te voorsien wat daarop gerig is om normale funksionering te bewerkstellig, maar dat geen sodanige verpligting bestaan om funksionering duskant hierdie punt te verbeter nie. Hierdie proefskrif sal laasgenoemde posisie aan kritiek onderwerp deur die manier waarop ons normale funksionering verstaan, te ondersoek, en deur aan die hand te doen dat hierdie tipe funksionering nie as normatiewe standaard wat die perke van ons morele verpligtinge bepaal, kan dien nie. Die morele gewenstheid wat ons toeskryf daaraan om normale funksionering mee te bring, is op die onafhanklike etiese imperatief om die moontlikhede vir welstand van morele agente te bevorder, gebaseer. Hierdie motivering doen egter eweseer aan die hand dat ons verplig sal wees om sekere tipes verbeteringsingrype te verskaf wat waarskynlik die welsynbelange van morele agente sal bevorder, wanneer sulke verbeteringsingrype beskikbaar word. Hierdie argument impliseer ook dat die ontwikkeling van verbeteringstegnologieë van ons sal vereis om ons etiese konsepsie van skadelike nie-voordele opnuut te deurdink. Tans dink ons dat die nie-voorsiening van mediese behandeling, sowel as sommige omgewingsverbeterings soos opvoeding, tot so „n mate skadelik is dat staatsinmenging met die doel om dit reg te stel, geregverdig is. Ons erken dat sulke nie-voorsiening en die gevolglike versuim om die welsynsbelange van morele agente te bevorder, waar sulke bevordering moontlik is, mense skade berokken deur hulle in „n slegter posisie te plaas as waarin hul kon gewees het, ten aansien van hul kanse om 'n goeie lewe te leef. Die nuwe tegnologiese moontlikhede wat die voortuitsig van genetiese verbetering ons bied, beteken dat ons binnekort 'n beter alternatief mag hê vir die vlak van funksionering wat ons tot dusver kon bewerkstellig, ooreenkomstig ons kanse om 'n goeie lewe te leef. Dit impliseer dat die nie-voorsiening van hierdie verbeterings skadelik sal wees tot die mate wat ingrype om hierdie voorsiening teweeg te bring, geregverdig sal wees.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: We live in a time of unprecedented wealth and ease, taking airplanes to exotic locales and enjoying a variety of foods from across the globe. Significant improvements in healthcare have increased life expectancy to three times that of Ancient Egypt, once considered the most advanced civilization of its time. Yet despite these advances, millions of children continue to suffer. Ninety-nine percent of the millions of child deaths before the age of five each year are preventable through low cost treatments. Poor children who live past age five usually experience a lifetime of intellectual, physical, and emotional setbacks because of their disadvantaged circumstances. What, if anything, is to be done? This dissertation argues we have strong moral obligations to help children by providing a substantive equality of opportunity so that any differences in socioeconomic or life circumstance result from individual choice, not poor moral luck. These obligations are grounded in the common morality, arise from cosmopolitan applications of beneficence, and include the provision of nutritious food, safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, shelter, certain levels of healthcare and education, and love and guidance. Although the task before us is large, it is not impossible and thus incumbent upon us to fulfill it. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Ons lewe in ‘n tyd van ongekende rykdom en gemak, waar ons vlieg na eksotiese bestemmings en ‘n verskeidenheid van kos en ontspanning van regoor die wêreld geniet. Groot verbeterings in mediese sorg het ons lewensverwagting opgestoot tot drie keer die van Antieke Egipte, wat eens op ‘n tyd beskou is as die mees gevorderde samelewing op aarde. Ten spyte van hierdie vooruitgang is daar steeds miljoene kinders wat hulself in ellendige toestande bevind. Nege-en-negentig persent van die kinders onder vyf jaar oud wat jaarliks sterf kon gered word deur laekoste mediese sorg. Arm kinders wat wel langer as ouderdom vyf leef, ervaar gewoonlik ‘n leeftyd van intellektuele, fisiese en emosionele terugslae as gevolg van hulle benadeelde omstandighede. Wat, indien enigiets, kan gedoen word? Hierdie proefskrif argumenteer dat ons ‘n sterk morele plig het om kinders te help deur substantiewe gelykheid van geleenthede te skep sodat verskille in sosio-ekonomiese of lewensomstandighede die resultaat sal wees van individuele keuses, en nie morele geluk nie. Hierdie pligte word begrond deur ons gemeenskaplike moraliteit, spruit voort uit ‘n kosmopolitaanse toepassing van goedwilligheid (‘beneficence’), en sluit die voorsiening van veilige drinkwater, voldoende sanitasie, skuiling, sekere vlakke van mediese sorg en opvoeding, en liefde en voorligting in. Alhoewel die taak wat wat voor ons staan ‘n groot een is, is dit nie onmoontlik nie en dus is dit ons plig om dit te vervul.

In this essay, I will examine the theory of territorial rights developed by Anna Stilz. The overarching project of hers is to defend a system of territorially sovereign states, the defense of which is grounded in the natural rights of individuals to personal autonomy and self-preservation. She begins her theoretic project by arguing for the plausibility of the preinstitutional occupancy right, intended to grant individuals usage-rights over the earth, existing irrespective of social or moral conventions, formally defined as follows: “Occupancy Rights. A person has a preinstitutional right to occupy a particular area if (1) access to spaces in that area is fundamental to his located life plans and (2) his connection to the territory was established without any wrongdoing on his part, involving (at a minimum) no expulsion or wrongful interference with prior occupants or infringement of others’ claims to an equitable distribution of geographical space.” The condition of equitable distribution expresses a concern for proportionality.  It seems as if Stilz believes that no territorial holding will be legitimate unless it is of an appropriate scale, with regard to the holdings of others. This condition is referred to by Stilz as the fair-use proviso. The fair-use proviso concerns the occupancy claims made by individuals. Stilz also introduces conditions for a legitimate global distribution of territory, named as the full proviso. Stilz’ defines the full proviso as follows: (conditions for a legitimate global distribution of territory): “The full proviso hold that a just distribution of the earth’s spaces must (i) satisfy everyone’s basic territorial interests and (ii) grant groups with shared practice-based interests the right to use geographical space in ways that reflect these interests, so long as the groups are of sufficient size, and so far as this is institutionally feasible.” For an individual occupancy claim to be legitimate is simply that it is consistent with the conditions for a legitimate global distribution of territory, i.e. the full proviso. The full proviso and the fair-use proviso are thus inseparable parts of a whole. In what follows, if not specified otherwise, I will alternate in referring to the fair-use proviso as the fair-use proviso or simply the proviso. The full proviso will always be italicized when discussed.  The purpose of this essay is to investigate whether the fair-use proviso is satisfying in the face of some criticism. In completing this task, I will draw on an objection put forth by Lea Ypi. The objection as formulated by her is not in direct response to Stilz, however I believe we might draw on her work to formulate a powerful objection from scarcity to Stilz’ fair-use proviso. The question at stake in this essay is thus if the objection of scarcity is successful against Stilz’ fair-use proviso.

In this thesis, three perspectives on the justification of intellectual property rights are investigated in the light of conflicting socioeconomic human rights. This is done by using a comparative method, where the perspectives chosen are reviewed through the lense of rights as legitimate claims, as well as accessibility of rights. The purpose is to review as to how the ownership of ideas and inventions can be justified in relation to the socioeconomic challenges faced in many parts of the world. The principal research question is: How can intellectual property rights be justified and how can it be evaluated against the backdrop of socioeconomic rights and moral obligations? To answer this question, I posed three sub-questions: First, how are intellectual property rights justified in the existing research chosen as an entry point for this thesis? Drawn from this, how can the justification of intellectual property rights be understood as a moral concern in a socioeconomically unequal world? Taking a cue from this, what questions need to be answered to better understand the transnational moral obligations linked to intellectual property rights? By reviewing the perspectives presented on the justification of intellectual property rights, I make three concluding statements ​— intellectual property rights cannot be justified in cases where they affect other individuals’ socioeconomic rights negatively; excessive benefits gained for creators is not morally reasonable; and the unequal distribution of power and opportunities in relation to transnational moral responsibilities need to be recognised.