Right and Wrong
β Scribed by Charlies Fried
- Year
- 1978
- Tongue
- English
- Leaves
- 239
- Category
- Library
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
Some acts are wrong, even if they have good results, and some are right even if the world would have been a better place without them. Here is a cogent and lucid argument for a system of morality that makes place for that which is right or wrong in itself and not just according to consequences. Charles Fried develops in this book a conception of right and wrong that supports judgments on subjects as various as tax structure, self-defense, kidney transplants, tort liability, and freedom of speech.
Fried begins by examining the demands of morality in two quite different cases: harming the innocent (where ordinary moral consciousness suggests absolutes) and lying (where consequences seem pertinent). Upon this foundation he elaborates a theory of rights that accounts for the obligation to contribute to the welfare of others but accounts also for the limits of that obligation. Comparisons and contrasts are drawn to economic theories of rights, and to the writings of Dworkin, Nozick, and Rawls. Finally, Fried considers how choices made within personal and professional rolesβby friends and kin, by doctors and lawyersβare susceptible of moral judgment.
Right and Wrong will have an impact on ethical, legal, and social theory, and will profit anyone thinking about the requirements of a moral life.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
<p>FriedΒ CharlesΒ : <br></p> <p>Charles Fried is Beneficial Professor of Law, Harvard University.</p>
"This book is an attempt to speak up for the wronged of the world . . . . My speaking up for the wrong of the world takes the form, in this book, of doing what I can to undermine those frameworks of conviction that prevent us from acknowledging that the other comes before us bearing a claim on us, a
Roger Scruton sets out a compelling account of how we should think about the morality of our relationships to other animals. He argues that it is wrong to believe that animals automatically have rights, but suggests we owe them duties depending on whether we are treating them as pets, for laborato
"What we believe is the result of our thinking. If we thinking. If we think wrong we believe wrong. The Word of God is given to us to straighten out our thinking. And if our believing is wrong, our confession will be wrong