Grounding subsistence rights: A survey of some alternative theories of justice

Ann Therese Sellars, Purdue University

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to delineate and consider alternative theories of justice with particular emphasis on the manner in which they would address questions concerning claims to subsistence rights, i.e. claims to the fulfillment of such basic needs as food, shelter, and health care. The theories of Henry Shue, Mihailo Markovic, Alan Gewirth, John Rawls, and John Stuart Mill are examined in turn with a focus on their responses to the following key questions: (i) What sorts of conditions give rise to subsistence rights-claims? (ii) How are claims to subsistence rights to be justified? and (iii) In what manner and by whom are subsistence rights-claims to be fulfilled? Tied to question (iii) concerning the actual fulfillment of subsistence rights is a question which appears repeatedly throughout the thesis. It is referred to as the "authoritative question of morality" and it asks: "Why should one be moral, in the sense of accepting as supremely authoritative or obligatory for one's actions the requirement of furthering or favorably considering the important interests of other persons, especially when these conflict with one's own interests?" The importance of each theory's response to this question is stressed as being critical to an assessment of the theory. For it is argued that the success of a theory of justice depends not only on the justifiability of its principles, but also on its ability to motivate agents to act out its prescripts. Only when agents are motivated to act out a theory's prescripts can the ultimate end or goal of the theory be achieved. In this thesis, a distinction is made between "rights in the abstract" and "rights in the concrete." The importance of viewing rights in a concrete sense, whereby the actual fulfillment of a right is seen as essential to possession of that right, becomes especially clear when considering the status of subsistence rights. It is argued that subsistence rights should obtain the status of rights in the concrete, i.e. that possession of subsistence rights should entail their fulfillment. This is because the substances of subsistence rights, namely, such basic goods as food, shelter, and health care, are viewed as essential to the "healthy development" of individuals--not just as regards their physical well-being, but also as regards their mental well-being, particularly their sense of self-worth or self-respect. The maintenance in a society of those conditions necessary for such self-development (which, it is argued, includes the granting and consistent fulfillment of each individual's subsistence rights) is in turn viewed as essential to a society based on the mutual respect and cooperation of its members.

Degree

Ph.D.

Advisors

May, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Philosophy

COinS