Our panel of 90 professional philosophers has responded to

1
 questions about 
Culture
102
 questions about 
Animals
74
 questions about 
Physics
99
 questions about 
Biology
45
 questions about 
War
187
 questions about 
Science
30
 questions about 
Space
21
 questions about 
Suicide
2
 questions about 
Action
191
 questions about 
Value
109
 questions about 
Children
72
 questions about 
Beauty
141
 questions about 
Freedom
1169
 questions about 
Ethics
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
317
 questions about 
Logic
122
 questions about 
Love
145
 questions about 
Sex
30
 questions about 
Music
71
 questions about 
Death
69
 questions about 
Emotion
347
 questions about 
Religion
202
 questions about 
Education
248
 questions about 
Knowledge
64
 questions about 
Perception
223
 questions about 
Justice
124
 questions about 
Existence
533
 questions about 
Philosophy
50
 questions about 
Medicine
51
 questions about 
Punishment
54
 questions about 
Truth
89
 questions about 
Time
34
 questions about 
Race
100
 questions about 
Art
66
 questions about 
Business
63
 questions about 
Happiness
30
 questions about 
Sport
65
 questions about 
Feminism
118
 questions about 
Profession
21
 questions about 
History
247
 questions about 
Language
26
 questions about 
Gender
58
 questions about 
Abortion
42
 questions about 
Color
82
 questions about 
Law
74
 questions about 
Identity
261
 questions about 
Mind
35
 questions about 
Literature

QUESTION OF THE DAY

If I believe that an action, e.g. killing-someone-from-a-distance-for-personal-pleasure-in-the-act-of-killing, with no extenuating circumstances, is always wrong, must I also believe that not-having-that-action-done-to-me is my "right"? Or can "rights" only exist in the presence of an enforcing authority, while wrongs can exist with or without an authority? Under what circumstances could an act committed by a person be judged morally as a "bad" rather than a "wrong"? I apologise if this reads like an academic question, but it comes from a conversation I had tonight with my wife. Thank you.

Perhaps the easiest way to answer your question is to start from a slightly different place. We need to distinguish the idea of rights from the idea of what is morally right (and wrong). Once we’ve made that distinction, we can then look at the further distinction between what is morally wrong and what is morally bad.

The idea of rights extends widely. I have a right to go to the cinema, a right not to be killed, a right to be paid (given my contract with my employer), a right to have children, a right to the exclusive use of my house. Some rights are moral rights, some are legal, some are the results of contracts. In general, a right can be understood as an entitlement to perform, or refrain from, certain actions and/or an entitlement that other people perform, or refrain from, certain actions. Many rights involve a complex set of such entitlements.

The two central features of rights are:

Privilege/liberty: I have a privilege/liberty to do x if I have no duty not to do x. I have the right to go to the cinema because I have no duty not to go to the cinema. But I have no right to steal, because I have a duty not to steal.

Claim: I have a claim right that someone else does x in certain cases in which they have a duty to me to do x. Claim rights can be ‘negative’ – they require that other people don’t interfere with me (e.g. the right not to be killed); or ‘positive’ – they require that other people do specific action (e.g. the right to be paid if I’m employed).

While every claim right entails a duty, not every duty entails a claim right. Some duties are based on rights, but some are not. I may have a duty to give to charity, but I have not violated anyone’s rights if I don’t. So talk of rights should not be confused with talk of what is morally right. And so I’m afraid we can’t simply say that because something is morally wrong, you have a (claim) right that it is not done to you. In the example you give, I would suggest that it is wrong to kill someone from a distance for pleasure because people have the right not to be treated this way. It is not that you have the right because it is wrong. The fact that it is always wrong (let’s suppose) doesn’t mean that it is based on a right, either. For instance, you have certain property rights, which make it wrong for people to take your property from you. But there are circumstances in which this is not true, e.g. forced purchase by the government, or commandeering your car in a police emergency. The system of property rights is not absolute, but it is a system of rights nevertheless.

So to ‘wrongs’ and ‘bads’. We often associate rights and wrongs with duties, esp. duties of justice - to do with minimally required treatment of others. Actions which do not violate a duty can nevertheless be bad. Exactly which actions qualify depend on your theory of duties. But some suggestions might include squandering opportunities to do good, failing to show kindness in a personal relationship, or other matters related to personal virtue, moral development, and seeking the good of others.

There’s much more to say about all these matters, but I hope that helps!