Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
com
Observation 1: Default to frameworks clarifying the moral obligation of I think some work on organization so it's easy to flow
government, due both to the evaluative mechanism ought in the resolution which is will help judges.
used to imply morality, and the general direction of the resolution, questioning what the
You should also make sure you understand the Rawls
role of the United States government should be. evidence. I don't think you need to extend all of it to
Obligations are distinct from moral duties in that they are not universal but win, but know which pieces are most important.
must consider the parties involved in the moral transaction.
Contentions 1 and 2 are good, but they're long. You
Steinberger: 1 might consider how to shorten them. I think adding a
Political Obligations and Derivative Duties contention 3 that would serve as good defense to
Peter J. Steinberger The Journal of Politics, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 449-465 Published by: Cambridge University Press on utilitarian negs would be valuable as well
behalf of the Southern Political Science Association Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2691856
obligation is, by definition, something owed by a specific
Formally, Simmons again following Hart, Rawls, and others says that a moral
And send me your NEG if I didn't comment on it. I can't
find one from you unless it's Nozick
person to a specific person, whereas moral duties "are owed by all persons to all others." Thus, anyone
has a moral duty to save anyone else from drowning, but my obligation to repay the money you loaned me is limited to me Commented [2]: Nozick is my neg. If I need to go
more traditional with him for region I can.
and you. Another way of saying this is that moral obligations are analogous to legal rights in person am rights that are
held against a particular person while moral duties are more similar to rights in rem, which are held against all other people (Simmons 1979, 15).
1
2
Korsgaard, Christine M. The Sources of Normativity. 1992. The Tanner Lectures. Pg. 78-79.
http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/korsgaard94.pdf
1
We need reasons because our
desires might not withstand reflective scrutiny, then the solution is that they might.
impulses must be able to withstand reflective scrutiny. We have reasons if they do.
The normative word reason refers to a kind of reflective success. If good and right are also taken to be intrinsically normative
words then they too must refer to reflective success. And they do. Think of what they mean when we use them as exclamations:
Good! Right! There they mean: Im satisfied, Im happy, Im committed, youve convinced me, lets go. They mean the work of
reflection is done. Reason then means reflective success. So if I decide that my desire is
a reason to act, I must decide that on reflection I endorse that desire.
Only practical reason binds all agents to morality. Other frameworks, like intuitionism,
exempt people from morality on the basis of ignorance. Intuitionists believe that intuitive moral
facts merely exist and are observable from experience. But just as you would not hold me
accountable if I didnt tell you happy birthday because I did not know when your birthday was, it
is impossible to hold agents accountable if they never learned certain moral facts in their
upbringing in the first place. Under practical reason, however, morality is not optional because
rationality is closed under reflection. When one asks the question why should I be rational?
they have already submitted themselves to reflection.
3
Freeman, Samuel. "Original Position." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/#ArgForDifPri.
2
From a veil of ignorance, moral agents would rationally choose to be
risk-averse and thus adopt a principle that would guarantee basic
goods for themselves.
Freeman4 2 continues:
It is often claimed that Rawls's parties are risk-averse; otherwise they would never follow the maximin rule but would take a
chance on riskier but potentially more rewarding outcomes provided by the principle of utility. Thus, John Harsanyi contends that it
is more rational under conditions of complete uncertainty always to choose according to the principle of insufficient reason and
assume an equal probability of occupying any position in society. When the equiprobability assumption is made, the parties in the
original position would choose the principle of average utility instead of the principles of justice (see Harsanyi 1975). Rawls denies
that the parties have a psychological disposition to risk-aversion. He argues however that it is rational to choose as if
one were risk averse under the highly exceptional circumstances of the original
position. His point is that, while there is nothing rational about a fixed disposition to risk aversion, it is nonetheless rational in
some circumstances to choose conservatively to protect certain fundamental interests against loss or compromise. It does not make
one a risk averse person, but rather it is rational to purchase auto liability, health, home, and life insurance against accident or
calamity. The original position is such a situation writ large. Even if one knew in the original position that
the citizen one represents enjoys risk-taking, this would still not be a reason to
gamble with his or her rights, opportunities, and starting position in society; for if
she were born into a traditional, repressive, or fundamentalist society, she might well
have little opportunity for risk-taking, gambling, entrepreneurship, and the like. It is
rational then even for the risk-taker to choose conservatively in the original
position and guarantee her future opportunities to take risks. (And assuming that the parties
are trustees, then it would be not simply irrational but a dereliction of duty to choose otherwise.) Harsanyi and other orthodox
Bayesians contend that maximin is an irrational decision rule, and provide ample examples. But simply because maximin is under
many circumstances irrational does not mean that it is never rational. No doubt maximin is an irrational strategy under most
circumstances of choice uncertainty, particularly under circumstances where we have future opportunities to recoup potential losses
and choose again. But these are not the circumstances of [In] the original position; once the rules of
justice are decided they apply in perpetuity, and there is no opportunity to
renegotiate or escape the situation. One who relies on the equiprobability assumption in choosing principles of
justice in the original position is being foolishly reckless given the gravity of choice at stake. It is not being risk-averse, but rather
entirely rational to be unwilling to gamble with the basic liberties, opportunities and
resources needed to pursue one's most cherished ends and commitments for the sake of
gaining the marginally greater income and wealth that may be available in a society governed
entirely by the principle of utility.
Since the only way to guarantee basic goods for themselves absent knowledge of their social
standing in society would be to adopt social institutions that would protect societys least well-
off, my criterion is ordering society on a principle that benefits the
4
Ibid.
3
least well-off.
[C1] My first contention is that a right to housing is key to prevent and curb
homelessness and protect physical security.
There is rampant homelessness in the US and its caused by a lack of
affordable housing.
IWHRC 09
International Womens Human Rights Clinic (CUNY Law). A Gendered Perspective On The Right To Housing In The United
States. CUNY. 2009. HW. http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/law/files/2013/03/IWHR-Gendered-Housing-Perspective.pdf
Currently, the gap between the number of affordable housing units available and the
number of those who need them is 4.5 million units, the largest gap on record.76 Between 2005 and 2008, New York City lost 55,000 or 7.5% of
housing units with rents below $800 per month.77 In Washington D.C., rent for a two-bedroom apartment increased by fifty- eight percent between 2000 and 2008.78All of these factors have led to high rent
burdens, overcrowding, and substandard housing. According to the National Coalition for Homelessness, the average United States household must earn at least $17.84/hour to afford an adequate 2-bedroom
There are no
rental unit and maintain basic, subsistence needs. For a 1-bedroom unit, a worker must earn $14.97/hour.79 Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour.80
Federal funding for benefits programs are insufficient and declining. Federal
support for low-income housing fell forty-nine percent between 1980 and 2003.87 The
budget provided by Congress to USHUD decreased by $52.1 billion between 1976 and 2004.88 TANF benefits and Food Stamps, additional resources relied upon by low-income families, are so low that combined
they do not raise a family above the federal poverty level in any state.89 The average income of homeless families is $8000 per year.90 In 2006, fifteen percent of families and thirty-two percent of single- parent
families lived below the federal poverty line.91 In Washington D.C., the city with the highest poverty rate in the United States, nearly one of five women live below the federal poverty line.92 Clearly, the United
States has failed to fulfill the right to adequate housing due to policies (in particular dis-investment, inequitable investment and demolition of housing for the poor, all discussed below) that have allowed and
enabled this acute shortage of affordable housing. The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights defined this right to housing in General Comment 4 and found that: the right to housing is not merely a
roof over ones head; this right also includes the ability to live somewhere in security, peace, and dignity.93 Thus, this right is more aptly described as the right to adequate housing which includes affordability or
the ability to manage housing costs without having to compromise or forego other basic necessities.94 The United States government is failing to meet this standard for the 4.5 million Americans unable to attain
affordable housing. Although there is some evidence that cities are acting to combat the rising number of homeless families in the United States,95 the United States government still has not enacted legislation nor
put in place a national plan to ending homelessness.96 International law requires states to take all appropriate measures to meet its obligations.97 Not only has the United States government failed to do this,
destruction of low-income housing and cuts to federal housing programs are retrogressive measures also contrary to international human rights standards.98
housing is a fun-damental need. In earlier eras, events such as the great Chicago fire of 1871 and the cholera epidemics that swept densely populated urban
areas in the early and mid-19th Century dra-matically made the link between poor hous- ing conditions and health and safety (Friedman 1968). The public response was enactment of tenement house laws, first in
New York City and followed by other large cities. The explicit goal was to regulate the health, safety and morals of tenants (Wood 1934) as well as to protect the nonpoor who were living in nearby neighbor-
hoods. Although housing conditions have improved dramatically since the 19th Century, poor qual-ity is still a problem facing millions of Ameri-cans. Fires due to inadequate wiring or faulty furnaces are still
commonplace, and many households are plagued by infestations of ver-min and inadequate heating systems. In recent years, there have been compelling demonstra-tions of the links between health and housing.
linked to childhood injuries and lead poisoning, and that damp, moldy interiors are
associated with elevated incidences of respiratory disease and asthma (Sandel et al. 1999, 2526; see also Scientific American 1999, 1920; Bernstein 1999;
Pe r ez-Pen a 2003). Over the past 30 years, we have learned a great deal about the impact of lead on childrens health. Lead poisoning has been called the most common and devastating environmental disease of young
children (U.S. General Accounting Office 1993, 2). The Centers for Disease Con- trol and Prevention estimates that 434,000 chil- dren younger than age six have blood-lead lev- els above the federal guideline (Avril
2003).4 Hazards due to lead paint are most serious among poor, nonwhite households, who have a far higher incidence of lead poisoning than their higher-income white counterparts (Leonard et al. 1993, 8; National Low
Income Housing Coali- tion 2003). St. Louis, which has the nations fourth oldest housing stock, has childhood lead poisoning rates about six times the national av-erage. In 1999, the citys lead poisoning preven- tion
program was scheduled to decontaminate about 500 low-income apartments. However, at that rate, it will finish deleading St. Louis in about 200 years (Grunwald 1999). Additional evidence on the connections be- tween
poor housing and health comes from a controlled study carried out in England, which revealed that residents living in high-quality public housing in West London were far less likely to become sick than those living in
4
the costs of fail-ing to provide decent homes in
low- quality public housing in East London. Further, researchers concluded that
stable environ-ments to familiesin the forms of ill health, underachievement, crime and vandalismwill far exceed the
investment in adequate mainte- nance and repair of housing (cited in Hynes et al. 2000, 3536).
Although there may be room for improving our ability to measure the cost-effectiveness of improved housing, physi- cal problems caused by poor housing should not persist.
Bratt 2 adds Rachel G. Bratt, Michael E. Stone and Chester Hartman (professor and chair of the Department of Urban and
Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University and a Fellow at the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies; professor of
community planning and public policy at University of Massachusetts, Boston; director of research at the Poverty & Race Re- search
Action Council in Washington, DCan organization for which he served as executive di- rector and president from its founding in
1990 through 2003). Why a Right to Housing Is Needed and Makes Sense: Editors Introduction. Temple University Press. 2006.
HW. http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1301_reg.html
Further, recent research on impacts of home-lessness on children has revealed that while only 5 percent of children entering
shelters had a developmental delay requiring specialist eval- uation, . . . half of the children living in home- less shelters had one or
more developmental de- lays. In addition, although nearly one-half the school-age children in
homeless shelters needed special education evaluation, only 22 percent ac- tually
received this testing. Children living in shelters also missed far more days of school
than did housed children. And, finally, one-half of all children in shelters showed signs of
anxiety and depression and demonstrated significantly more behavioral disturbances, such as tantrums and
aggressive behavior, than did poor housed chil- dren (cited in Sandel et al. 1999, 39). Although it may be difficult to prove that these
and other types of problems are caused by poor or no housing,7 it is undeniable that, at the very least, inadequate
housing (including long-term residence in shelters) can exacerbate an already problematic
situation. A key aspect of family well-being necessarily involves the provi- sion of decent, affordable housing (Bratt 2002). As
a bi-partisan task force report declared: a decent place for a family to live becomes a platform for dignity and self-respect and a base
for hope and improvement. A decent home al- lows people to take advantage of opportunities in education, health and
employmentthe means to get ahead in our society. A decent home is the important beginning point for growth into the mainstream
of American life. (Report of the National Housing Task Force 1988, 3). More recently, this assertion was echoed by the
Congressionally-appointed bi-partisan Millen- nial Housing Commission: Decent and affordable housing has a demon- strable
impact on family stability and the life outcomes of children. Decent housing is an in- dispensable building block of healthy neighbor-
hoods, and thus shapes the quality of community life. . . . Better housing can lead to better outcomes for individuals, communities,
Housing has also been credited as providing a
and American society as a whole. (2002, 1)8
significant boost on the economic ladder due to the opportunity it can
present to build assets. Although a key argument of this book is that housing need not be viewed as the only or best
vehicle for promoting savings and wealth accumulation (see Stone 1993,195196, for a discussion of a social alternative to wealth
creation through homeownership), and that much more housing can and should be socially and publicly owned, we acknowledge
since the end of World War II, millions of households have been
that, at least
able to gain a foothold in the economy through their ability to become
homeowners. However, recent research points to several important concerns and risks related to low-income
homeownership, including the possibility of financial losses (see Retsinas and Belsky 2002:Part 3). And of course a central defect of
the homeownership push is the enormous racial disparities that exist in home- ownership rates and in the wealth-generating
potential and actuality of home purchase (see Chapter 3 and Shapiro 2004).9 Beyond the effects of housing itself, where people live,
in terms of neighborhood setting and locational advantage, has a great deal to do with access to both educational opportunities and
employ- ment and social networks (see Chapter 18).
5
for this is believed to be the change in the approach by local authorities from one of responding
to housing emergencies towards one of prevention (Busch- Geertsema and Fitzpatrick, 2008). Local housing authorities
are now required to produce homeless strategies that include their approach to
preventing homeless-ness. There is an attempt to identify potentially
homeless households early and provide them with services that will prevent homelessness (e.g.
tenancy sustain- ment services), as well as an emphasis on working with (potentially) homeless
households to review their housing options (e.g. by supporting a move to a private rented tenancy). Despite
a reduction in the number of homelessness applications the number of households in temporary accommodation has remained relatively high,
indicating persistent difficulties in rehousing households into settled housing, although there have been some modest falls since 2005.
6
Contention:
[C2] My Second Contention is that a right to housing is necessary to protect
human dignity and hold governments accountable to citizens needs.
Housing is essential to ensure human dignity.
Felix Morka writes:
(Mr. Morka is the Director of the Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC), which was established in 1995 to promote and
advance social and economic rights in Nigeria). The Right to Adequ[cCate Housing. University of Minnesota Human Rights
Research Center) HW. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/IHRIP/circle/modules/module13.htm
Housing forms an indispensable part of human dignity. "Adequate housing"
ensuring
It fulfills deep-
encompasses more than just the four walls of a room and a roof over ones head. Housing is essential for normal healthy living.
seated psychological needs for privacy and personal space; physical needs for security and protection from inclement
weather; and social needs for basic gathering points where important relationships are forged and nurtured. In many societies, a
house also serves an important function as an economic center where essential commercial activities are performed. Despite global recognition of the
importance of housing to human welfare and survival, it is estimated that over one billion people live in inadequate housing while over 100 million
people are homeless. [1] Governments claim lack of capacity and resources to implement programs and undertake reforms aimed at creating the
The right to adequate housing therefore provides a unique
conditions for expanding access to housing.
paradigm for monitoring the steps taken by states towards the provision of
housing through citizens demands and insistence upon the fulfillment of
this basic human right.
Rachel Bratt 3 adds: Rachel G. Bratt, Michael E. Stone and Chester Hartman (professor and chair of the Department
of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University and a Fellow at the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies;
professor of community planning and public policy at University of Massachusetts, Boston; director of research at the Poverty &
Race Re- search Action Council in Washington, DCan organization for which he served as executive di- rector and president from
its founding in 1990 through 2003). Why a Right to Housing Is Needed and Makes Sense: Editors Introduction. Temple
University Press. 2006. HW. http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1301_reg.html
THE EMOTIONAL AND SYMBOLIC IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING In addition to protecting people from the ele- ments and providing (or not providing) phys- ical safety,
housing fulfills a variety of critical functions in contemporary society.5 A landmark study prepared in 1966 for the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(predecessor to the Department of Health and Human Ser- vices) investigated what was known about the relationship between housing and the feelings and behavior of
individuals and families. It con- cluded that The evidence makes it clear that housing affects perception of ones self, con-
tributes to or relievesstress, and affects health (Schorr 1966, 3). A decade later, a study of middle-income peo- ple affirmed that an important aspect of
the meaning of ones house is the sense of permanence and security one could experience....In this regard, people spoke of sinking roots, nesting, and generally settling down.
of a place from which others could be excluded, and where, con- sequently, one could truly be oneself, in con- trol, more of an individual, capable of loving, and fully human .
(Rakoff 1977, quoted in Stone 1993, 15) Feminist architectural historian Dolores Hayden has also emphasized the emotional im- portance of housing: Whoever speaks of hous-
ing must also speak of home; the word means both the physical space and the nurturing that takes place there (1984, 63). If housing is over- crowded, dilapidated or otherwise
7
housing in France has occurred on a larger policy level, where the problems of
homelessness and instability have garnered increased attention. The success of a
legally enforceable right may be best measured not in terms of the number of
persons that obtain housing as a result of its existence, but in terms of its ability to
redirect the overall policy orientation of a country towards more effective
solutions to homelessness. Indeed, the ultimate benefit of an enforceable right to housing is possibly best described
by Lacharme, who argues: The DALO Act did not magic away all the problems, but it did engage an irreversible process: there is no
going back from the performance obligation. The enforceability of the right to housing is a potent
force for action by those enduring housing deprivation and those who work with
them.39