Running head: HUMAN RIGHTS VERSUS MORAL OBLIGATION 1

Human Rights Versus Moral Obligation

Student’s Name:

Institutional Affiliation:
HUMAN RIGHTS VERSUS MORAL OBLIGATION 2

Human Rights Versus Moral Obligation

The role of the law in checking human behavior while observing individual rights has

long dominated public discourse for a long time. Various court rulings have fueled the

conversation about the role of the American Cconstitution in safeguarding basic human freedoms

while ensuring responsible social behavior. The “no duty to rescue rule,” Plessy v. Ferguson

(1896), and Roe v. Wade (1971) reflect the diverse manifestations of the ‘human rights versus

moral obligation’ debate in American law.

The “no duty to rescue rule” has raised considerable controversy due to its failure to

institutionalize humanity in the Constitutionlaw. Jonathan Turley underlines the law’s

inadequacy in enforcing moral responsibility in three cases. In one instance, a New York court

exonerated subway workers for failing to intervene decisively in a rape incident at their station,

arguing ruling that they had no legal obligation to do so (p. 1). Another court had established

thise principle in Yania v. Bigan (1959), when it cleared the defendant of responsibility in failing

to help the plaintiff during a drowning incident (p. 2). Turley thinks that the lack of legal

responsibility for moral decisions in these instances incurs a huge social cost, as underlined by

the failure of citizens to help a rape and murder victim in Queens in 1964 (p. 3). While Turley’s

concern is valid, Iinstitutionalizing moral responsibility may raise questions about the human

right to free will. Although the cost of indifference is significant, the solution to creating social

responsibility lies in engaging people on the importance of humanity through civic education and

not legally obligating them to show charityhelp others.

While the “no duty to rescue rule” upheld fundamental rights despite the moral cost

involved, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), undermined the very foundation of human morality and

freedoms. In thise case, the Supreme Court allowed institutional segregation based on race
HUMAN RIGHTS VERSUS MORAL OBLIGATION 3

provided that both blacks and whites received equal services. The author criticizes the ruling for

constitutionalizing the alienation of one racial group for a long timedecades, a moral anomaly

which was only set right in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education (p. 4). Plessey v. Ferguson

shows how the law can be used by a certain class to advance their interests. The legal system in

the U.S has made major gains since then, but institutional segregation continues in informal ways

such as unequal education and housing policy.

Abortion has been a key topic in the ‘human rights versus moral obligation’ debate with

Roe v. Wade (1973) both expanding and limiting women’s discretion on the issue. In the

landmark ruling, the Supreme Court maintained that it was unconstitutional for Texas to impose

blanket abortion restrictions on women without considering the health of the mother or the

pregnancy stage (p. 8). The court held that doctors had discretion into abortion decisions before

the first trimester and the state could sanction the decision in later stages of fetal growth. The

Supreme Court weighed the competing considerations of moral responsibility and human rights

in making thise decision. While the mother’s right to privacy and self-determination are primal,

the right to life for the unborn child is equally important. By legalizing abortions, the Court gave

mothers more autonomy, but refused to give them complete freedom to get abortions. By vesting

the discretionary rights to abortion to the physician and the state, the court tried to iensured

responsible abortions.

Legal decisions in the U.S have ranked at various positions of the human rights v. moral

obligation continuum as evidenced by “no duty to rescue rule,” Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and

Roe v. Wade (1971). While Plessey v. Ferguson was a blatant violation of human rights and

social responsibility, Roe v. Wade was an integration of both considerations for social good.
HUMAN RIGHTS VERSUS MORAL OBLIGATION 4

However, the “no duty to rescue rule” shows that more still needs to be done to engender greater

moral accountability in the legal system.

References

Case Studies: Turley, J., “No duty to rescue rule: Court holds that New York transit workers had

no obligation to help woman being raped in station;,” Plessy v. Ferguson (1896);,

and Roe v. Wade (1973).

Dear Writer,
Excellently done, Nil. This was a quick and easy paper, so this is going to be quick and
easy feedback.
I just want to make a note (mostly for my supervisor, to be honest), that – as previously
discussed – I’m not knocking off any points for reference issues. This was a weird case and I
appreciate all the effort you put into making it work. I think what I’ve done here is the closest
we’re going to get to what the client needs.
Be sure to be concise. Some phrases like “for a long time” can often be shortened,
whether that means using the adjective “long” or specifying a time period (decades). Keep an eye
out for opportunities like this.
Be consistent in formatting citations. Some of your citations had spaces in them, some
did not. Some had a period after the p, some did not. Always double check this sort of thing
before submission.
Remember, the word “this” can be your friend. It makes your writing more specific. If
you describe a case and then say, “The case,” it’s not clear if you’re talking about the case you
just described or a different one. “This case” can remove that confusion.
Overall, great job. Nice work.
Your percentage of the bid for this assignment is 85%.
Thank you for your submission. I look forward to the next one.
Best,
Patrick

1 mLLC: careless mistakes

1 mLLC: word choice
1 mLLC grammar
1 mLLC: stylistic