F R A M E W O R KS A N D

PART III : D O U R
PRINC I P L E S B E H I N
O R A L D IS P O S I T I O N
M
1. NATURAL LAW (ST. THOMAS AQUINAS)
THOMAS AQUINAS: NATURAL LAW

• THOMAS AQUINAS (1225–1274) WAS BORN IN WHAT IS NOW CENTRAL

ITALY, AND SPENT HIS LIFE AS A PRIEST AND SCHOLAR IN THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH. HIS MOST FAMOUS WORK IS THE VOLUMINOUS
SUMMA THEOLOGICA, WHICH CONTAINS AN INFLUENTIAL ACCOUNT
OF NATURAL LAW. PART OF AQUINAS’S MOTIVATION IS TO EXPLAIN
WHY NATURAL LAW IS UNIVERSAL, YET AT THE SAME TIME LAWS OF
PARTICULAR COUNTRIES CAN DRAMATICALLY VARY.
• WHAT IS NATURAL LAW?

NATURAL LAW IS A THEORY IN ETHICS AND PHILOSOPHY THAT

SAYS THAT HUMAN BEINGS POSSESS INTRINSIC VALUES THAT
GOVERN THEIR REASONING AND BEHAVIOR. NATURAL LAW
MAINTAINS THAT THESE RULES OF RIGHT AND WRONG ARE
INHERENT IN PEOPLE AND ARE NOT CREATED BY SOCIETY OR
COURT JUDGES. NATURAL LAW DOES NOT GENERATE AN
EXTERNAL SET OF RULES THAT ARE WRITTEN DOWN FOR US TO
CONSULT BUT RATHER IT GENERATES GENERAL RULES THAT ANY
RATIONAL AGENT CAN COME TO RECOGNIZE SIMPLY IN VIRTUE
OF BEING RATIONAL.
• WHAT ARE THE THREE MAIN TENETS OF NATURAL LAW?

(1) THE NATURAL LAW IS GIVEN BY GOD;

(2) IT IS NATURALLY AUTHORITATIVE OVER ALL HUMAN
BEINGS; AND
(3) IT IS NATURALLY KNOWABLE BY ALL HUMAN BEINGS.
AQUINAS'S NATURAL LAW THEORY CONTAINS FOUR DIFFERENT TYPES
OF LAW: ETERNAL LAW, NATURAL LAW, HUMAN LAW AND DIVINE LAW.
• ETERNAL LAW IS THE DIVINE WISDOM OF GOD WHICH OVERSEES
THE COMMON GOOD AND GOVERNS EVERYTHING.
• NATURAL LAW IS “THE RATIONAL CREATURE’S PARTICIPATION IN THE
ETERNAL LAW”
• HUMAN LAW IS THE INTERPRETATION OF NATURAL LAW IN
DIFFERENT CONTEXTS.
• DIVINE LAW IS THE HISTORICAL LAWS OF SCRIPTURE GIVEN TO US
THROUGH GOD’S SELF-REVELATION.
1.1. MORAL GOODS
• BY "MORALLY GOOD" WE MEAN THE STATE OF
POSSESSING WHAT IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS GOOD
CHARACTER, ROOTED IN VIRTUE, IN THE BROAD SENSE
OF THIS TERM THAT EMBRACES A VARIETY OF
PARTICULAR VIRTUES SUCH AS COURAGE, JUSTICE,
TEMPERANCE AND THE LIKE.
NATURAL LAW THAT ARE GOOD FOR HUMANS ;

• SELF-PRESERVATION – PROTECTION OF YOURSELF FROM HARM OR DEATH.

• PROCREATION – TO PRODUCE CHILDREN OR OFFSPRING.
• KNOWLEDGE – IS DEFINED AS WHAT IS LEARNED, UNDERSTOOD OR AWARE OF.
• SOCIABILITY – SOCIABILITY REFERS TO DIFFERENT FORMS OF SOCIAL
INTERACTION AND HUMAN ASSOCIATION.

• FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD – KOINONIA DESCRIBES THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT THAT
COMES FROM CHRISTIANS' SHARED BELIEFS, CONVICTIONS, AND BEHAVIORS.
1.2. HUMAN ACTS AND ACTS OF MAN
HUMAN ACTS
• HUMAN ACTS ARE ACTIONS DONE INTENTIONALLY, FREE, AND DELIBERATE OF A PERSON. THESE ARE
ACTIONS THAT A MAN PROPERLY MASTER FOR HE DOES THEM WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE AND OF HIS OWN
WILL.
HUMAN ACTS
• ACTS WHICH PROCEED FROM A DELIBERATE FREEWILL.
• A MAN IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTS.
• INVOLVES AND MAN’S RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE RESULTS OF HIS/HER ACTIONS.
ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF HUMAN ACTS
• KNOWLEDGE
• FREEDOM
• VOLUNTARINESS
KNOWLEDGE
• KNOWLEDGE - AN ACT IS DONE KNOWINGLY, WHEN THE DOER IS
CONSCIOUS (ALL SENSES ARE ACTIVE, SENSORY-PERCEPTION IS
FUNCTIONAL) AND AWARE OF THE REASON AND THE
CONSEQUENCES ON HIS ACTIONS. KNOWLEDGE IS SUPPLIED BY
THE INTELLECT AND IT DIRECTS THE WILL TO WANT THE OBJECT
IT PROPOSES.
FREEDOM
• FREEDOM – AN ACT IS DONE WHEN THE DOER ACTS BY HIS OWN INITIATIVE
AND CHOICE WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO DO SO BY ANOTHER PERSON OR
SITUATION.IT MAKES THE DOER THE FATHER OF HIS ACTS AND THUS, THE
DOER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE ACTS. HE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE
HAS DONE THEM BECAUSE HE WANTED TO AND HE CAN EXPLAIN WHY HE
WANTED TO DO THEM.
VOLUNTARINESS
• VOLUNTARINESS - AN ACT IS DONE WILLFULLY WHEN THE DOER
CONSENTS TO THE ACTS, ACCEPTING IT AS HIS OWN, AND
ASSUMES ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ITS CONSEQUENCES.IT IS
NATURALLY INCLINED TO THE GOOD, BUT MAN MAY SOMETIMES
DELIBERATELY CHOOSE EVIL.
WHAT ARE THE ACTS OF MAN?
• ACTS OF MAN - ARE INSTINCTIVE, SUCH AS PHYSIOLOGICAL IN
NATURE.
• IT IS AN ACT WHICH MAN PERFORMS BUT HE IS NOT THE MASTER
OF IT FOR HE HAS NOT CONSCIOUSLY CONTROLLED IT, HAS NOT
DELIBERATELY WILLED IT, AND IS SUBSEQUENTLY NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
 ACTIONS ARE DONE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF :
• IGNORANCE - IN GENERAL, IT IS A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING A CERTAIN THING.
• FEAR - IS A MENTAL AGITATION BROUGHT ON BY THE APPREHENSION OF SOME PRESENT
OR IMMINENT DANGER.
• PASSION - CONSIDERED AS MENTAL RESPONSES, EITHER TENDENCIES TOWARDS
DESIRABLE OBJECTS OR TENDENCIES AWAY FROM UNDESIRABLE OBJECTS.
• HABITS - IS A CONSTANT DISPOSITION THAT TENDS TO INFLUENCE ONE TO PERFORM
REPEATEDLY SIMILAR ACTIONS.
• VIOLENCE - IS A FORCE EXERTED ON A PERSON BY ANOTHER IN ORDER TO COMPEL HIM
TO PERFORM A CERTAIN ACTION AGAINST HIS WILL.
1.3 MODIFIERS OF RESPONSIBILITY
PRESUMED ARGUMENTS
•VOLUNTARINESS IS SAID TO BE COMPLETE AND PERFECT IF THE AGENT HAS
FULL KNOWLEDGE AND FULL CONSENT.
•IF EITHER THE KNOWLEDGE WHERE WHOLLYLACKING OR THE CONSENT
WERE WHOLLY LACKING,THERE COULD BE NO VOLUNTARINESS.
FIVE (5) MODIFIERS OF RESPONSIBILITY
•IGNORANCE - AFFECTING THE KNOWLEDGE
•STRONG EMOTION - AFFECTING THE CONSENT OF THE WILL
•INTELLECTUAL FEAR - OPPOSING TO THE WILL ACONTRARY WISH
•FORCE - ACTUAL USE OF PHYSICAL COMPULSION
•HABIT - A TENDENCY ACQUIRED BY REPETITION
FIVE (5) MODIFIERS OF RESPONSIBILITY

IGNORANCE- THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AFFECTS THE VOLUNTARINESS OF A

•

HUMAN ACT SO AS TO MAKE THE ACT LESS HUMAN ACT.

•THE ONLY IGNORANCE THAT HAS ETHICAL IMPORT IS IGNORANCE AN
AGENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE; AN IGNORANCE THAT OUGHT NOT TO EXIST.
THREE (3) KINDS OF IGNORANCE
•IGNORANCE THAT CAN BE OVERCOME BY ACQUIRING THE REQUISITE
KNOWLEDGE IS CALLED VINCIBLE IGNORANCE.
•IGNORANCE THAT CANNOT BE OVERCOME BECAUSE THE REQUISITE
KNOWLEDGE CANNOT BE ACQUIRED IS CALLED INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE.
•IGNORANCE DELIBERATELY CULTIVATED IN ORDER TO AVOID KNOWING WHAT
OUGHT TO BE KNOWN IS CALLED AFFECTED OR STUDIED IGNORANCE.
The Moral Determinants of a Human Act:
Object, End & Circumstances
ST I-II.18.1c:

Whether every human action is good, or are there evil actions?

We must speak of good and evil in actions as of good and evil in things: because such as
everything is, such is the act that it produces. Now in things, each one has so much good as
it has being: since good and being are convertible, as was stated in ST I.5.1 and 3.... We
must therefore say that every action has goodness, in so far as it has being; whereas it is
lacking in goodness, in so far as it is lacking in something that is due to its fullness of being;
and thus it is said to be evil: for instance if it lacks the quantity determined by reason, or its
due place, or something of the kind.
ST I-II.18.4c:

Whether a human action is good or evil from its end?

I answer that the disposition of things as to goodness is the same as their disposition
as to being. Now in some things the being does not depend on another, and in these it
suffices to consider their being absolutely. But there are things the being of which
depends on something else, and hence in their regard we must consider their being in
its relation to the cause on which it depends. Now just as the being of a thing depends
on the agent, and the form, so the goodness of a thing depends on its end. Hence in
the Divine Persons, Whose goodness does not depend on another, the measure of
goodness is not taken from the end. Whereas human actions, and other things, the
goodness of which depends on something else, have a measure of goodness from the
end on which they depend, besides that goodness which is in them absolutely.
What makes human act good or evil?
ST I-II.18.3c:

Whether man's action is good or evil from a circumstance?

I answer that, in natural things, it is to be noted that the whole fullness of

perfection due to a thing, is not from the mere substantial form, that gives it its
species; since a thing derives much from supervening accidents, as man does
from shape, color, and the like; and if any one of these accidents be out of due
proportion, evil is the result. So it is with action. For the plenitude of its goodness
does not consist wholly in its species, but also in certain additions which accrue to
it by reason of certain accidents: and such are its due circumstances. Wherefore if
something be wanting that is requisite as a due circumstance the action will be
evil.
Conscience as moral practical judgment by
st. thomas aquinas
According to Aquinas, conscience is the consideration of a specific
case in light of one's moral knowledge. Moral knowledge comprises the
first principles of synderesis, as well as more particular moral directives.a

For Aquinas, the rational part of the soul comprises the faculties or powers
of intellect and will. The object of the will is the good, and the object of the
intellect is the true. The latter potency is further divided into the speculative
intellect (intellectus speculativus) and the practical intellect (intellectus
practicus). How do these differ? The object of the speculative intellect is
truth as such, while the object of the practical intellect is the good “under
the aspect of truth” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica I, q. 79, a. 11, ad.
2). Synderesis and conscience, for Aquinas, both belong to the practical
intellect.
The Principle of Double Effect
Aquinas recognized that there are times when the action you
think you ought to do will have good and bad effects. In effect,
you have an ethical dilemma or conflict.
Under these circumstances, it is permissible to perform an action
causing bad effects if you meet these four conditions:
1. The action itself is morally neutral or morally good.
2. The bad effect is not the means by which the good effect is
achieved.
3. The motive must be the achievement of the good effect only.
4. The good effect is at least equivalent in importance to the bad
effect.
Can a person be moral but not ethical?
Part 111: Frameworks and Principles
Behind our Moral Disposition
 UTILITARIANISM
“Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill”
Objectives
1. Origin and Nature of Theory
2. Business fascination with Utilitarianism
WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM?
 UTILITARIANISM
❑ It is a form of consequentialism. For
consequentialism, the moral rightness or
wrongness of an act depends on the
consequences it produces.
❑ On utilitarian grounds, MORALLY WRONG
actions and inactions
which benefit few
people and harm more
people will be deemed
MORALLY RIGHT
❑ On the other hand, actions
and inactions which harm
fewer people and benefit
more people will be
deemed
Example:
Benefit and harm can be characterized in more
than one way:

For classical Utilitarian's such as Jeremy Bentham and

John Stuart Mill they are defined in terms of
happiness/unhappiness & pleasure/pain.
❑ Actions and inactions that causes more
happiness than unhappiness is deemed
morally right while actions and
inactions that causes more unhappiness
than happiness is deemed morally
wrong.
Example :
JEREMY BENTHAM

Born:
February 15, 1748
Hounds ditch,
London, United Kingdom

Died :
June 6, 1832
Westminster, London, United
Kingdom
 JEREMY BENTHAM

❑ Known as the Founder of modern Utilitarianism

❑ Claimed that pain and pleasure are “the two
sovereign masters of mankind”
❑ Did not distinguish between quality of pleasure and
focused only maximizing its quantity
❑ He developed the principles of utility by
defining it as a measure of maximizing
pleasure while minimizing pain.
❑ In developing the theory of utilitarianism, he
may have meant pleasure as in happiness and
pain as in sadness.
JOHN STUART MILL

Born:

- May 20, 1806

- Pentonville, London , United
Kingdom

Died:

- May 8, 1873
- Avignon, France
 JOHN STUART MILL

❑ JSM was actually the godson of Bentham

❑ He considered the principles of utilitarianism and
suggested that pleasure should not merely refer to
sensual pleasure but also to mental pleasure, such as
music, literature, and friendship.
 Types of Utilitarianism

❑ On Actual consequence utilitarianism only the actual

consequences have a bearing on right and wrong.
❑ And Foreseeable consequence utilitarianism the agent should
perform some action with the same expected desirability, and typically, the agent
Is not to be blamed even if the consequence is different
Example :
 Act utilitarianism focuses on individual
actions and says that we should apply the
principle of utility in order to evaluate them.
OTherefore, act utilitarian's argue that
among the possible actions, the
actions that produces most utility
would be the morally right action.
ORule utilitarianism focuses on
general types of actions and
determining whether they typically
lead to good or bad results.
Example:
❖ We may wonder whether utilitarianism in general is
capable of even addressing the notion that people have
rights and deserve to be treated justly and fairly.
❖ Because in critical situation, the rights wellbeing of
person can be sacrificed as long as this seems to lead to
an increase overall utility.
 Business fascination with
utilitarianism
❑ Business person who wish to use this theory
must first understand its four components.
❑ The application of this theory can be either
positive or negative.
 Four Components
OConsequentialism
OWelfarism
OIndividualism
O Aggregation
 1. CONSEQUENTIALISM
❑ It is the understanding
that the wrongness or
rightness of actions is
entirely determined by
their actions.
Example
 2. WELFARISM

❑ It is an understanding that the wrongness

or rightness of operations depend on
societies conception of welfare or well
being.
❑ In business, the management may decide to increase the
wages & benefits if it improves the wellbeing or promotes
the happiness of their employees.

❑ In this regard, the business will be positively applying

utilitarianism when they can balance the principle of
pleasure& pain & how they can influence their performance.
 3. INDIVIDUALISM

❑ The principle of
individualism in
utilitarianism holds that
every individual, as its
nature, pursues happiness,
thus will engage in actions
that maximize utility.
OIn this regard, business will take actions that
bring them happiness.
OHappiness or business may include increase
profits, increase customer satisfaction and
superior reputation.
 4. AGGREGATION

❑ It is the notion that the wrongness or

rightness of actions depend on their
ability to average the benefits brought
to all individuals.
❑ Bentham’s perspectives on
utilitarianism suggest that the consequences
of an action should bring happiness not only to
an individual but also the community around
him or her.
O Example:

by selling quality and safe products a

business will be increasing its intrinsic
value while meeting the needs of their
customers at the same time.
❑ Back to the concepts of pain and suffering, the ethical
position of utilitarianism is that human beings should be
happier and have less suffering.
❑ However, this does not mean that everyone is a utilitarian
because as a fundamental rule, there is basic moral
standard that one should not break.
 THANK YOU

Prepared by:
JISSEL ANN G. CANINO
BTLED-1
DEONTOLOGICAL
ETHICS
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

🞆 DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS is closely associated with Immanuel Kant’s model

of ethical theory.
It argues that the morality, that is, the rightness and wrongness, of a human act
depends on whether such act fulfils a duty or not, rather than on its consequence.
Hence, deontological ethics is duty-based. As a matter of fact, deontology comes
from a Greek word deon, which mean duty.
One of the basic ideas in deontological ethics is that some actions are right or
wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequence
For example:
.

People have the obligation to tell the truth even if doing so might
produce some unfavourable results.

In other words, Kant would have us believe, telling the truth is always
“right” in itself even if, again, doing so might produce some
unfavourable results.
Hence, telling a lie, on the contrary, is always wrong for deontological
ethics.
For instance:

A physician has just discovered that her patient is having a stage 4 breast
cancer.
However, the physician cannot divulge the truth to her patient right
away because the latter is having a cardiac condition as well.
If we are to consider the consequences of the act of telling the truth to
the patient, the latter may have a sudden cardiac arrest and eventually
die
In deontological ethics, therefore, before we make moral decisions, we
have to consider first which actions are right and wrong and proceed
from there.
🞆 If an action is right in itself, then we have a duty or the moral
obligation to act on it.
🞆 If an action is wrong in itself, then we are under moral obligation to
act accordingly.
Kant’s Moral Philosophy

🞆THE GOOD WILL

- InKant’s terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are wholly determined by
moral demands or, as he often refers to this, by the Moral Law. Human beings
inevitably feel this Law as a constraint on their natural desires, which is why such
Laws, as applied to human beings, are imperatives and duties.
🞆But how it is manifested?

-According to Kant a goodwill is manifested when it is done

for the sake of DUTY
In order for a goodwill to be called good without qualification
it must be done for the sake of DUTY
Example:

🞆The will to help a friend

- Kant would have to believe that if one expect something in return when someone
helps a friend then the will is not good without qualification because it is not done
for the sake of DUTY.
- But someone helps a friend because she/he believes that it is her/his duty to do so
then for Kant the will here is good without qualification because it is obviously done
for the sake of DUTY
Categorical Imperative

🞆 According to Immanuel Kant, morality means acting in accordance with the

categorical imperative.
🞆 The Categorical Imperative is the supreme principle of morality.
Hence, for Kant and act is moral if it is done in accordance with a categorical
imperative, otherwise it is non moral or immoral.
2 types of command

HYPOTHETICAL
🞆 The Hypothetical Imperative
is the one that expresses a
“conditional command”.
Ex. “If you want to become
successful, then you have to work
very hard”.
CATEGORICAL
🞆 Categorical Imperative is one that
expresses an “absolute command”.
For example we may say “Do not
cheat!”
FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE

First Formulation: Principles of Universality

- “Act only on that maxim whereby you can, at the same time will, that it should become a
universal law.” – the idea here is that if the maxim that is the principle in which the moral agent act
cannot be universalized then the action has no moral worth

The second formulation or formula of the end: Principle of Humanity

- “So act as to treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of another never as means
but always as an end” – it is important to note that Kant believes that human being have inherent
value and should never be treated as means to a particular end this is because for Kant if humans are
treated as means then they are reduce into things or on the level of animals.
Thus for Kant “Any act that treats humanity as means is not morally right”
W.D Ross (William David Ross)Prima Facie
Duties

- as a moral realist William David Ross argues that there are

objective moral truths that is
OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTHS EXITS IN REALITY –
how ever Ross claims that something is good only if that thing
is really good.
RIGHTNESS AND GOODNESS ARE THE ONLY TWO MORAL
PROPERTIES.
– it is important to note that Ross rightness and goodness are
indefinable; that is they are irreducible objective qualities thus as they
are in themselves rightness and goodness cannot be defined.
However as Ross would had as believe, We can make sense of what
rightness and goodness are through their physical manifestation.
Consider this as an example: “I HAVE A GOOD DINNER!”
“Goodness” depends on a specific situation
Example: “Divorce is good!”
🞆Now Ross contends that rightness belongs to an act,
while goodness belongs to a motive
thus rightness is not identical with the act per se just as
goodness is not identical with motive.
How do we know the rightness of an act and
goodness of its motive?

- well according to Ross in order for us to know the rightness

of an act and the goodness of its motive. We need to
determine the non-moral properties or circumstances that
surround the act itself.
for example: A physician administering a medicine to a patient.
🞆 MAXIMING THE GOOD IS ONE OF THE SEVERAL PRIMA FACIE
DUTIES THAT GUIDE THE INDIVIDUAL IN DETERMINING WHAT IS
OUHGT TO DO IN A GIVEN SITUATION.
As we can see Ross’s moral philosophy hinges also on the concept of Prima Facie Duty and Actual
Duty
Ross moral philosophy Prima Facie Duty – refers to a conditional duty.
While the Actual Duty refers to an unconditional duty
How do we resolve when conflict duties arise?

- according to Ross when the conflict of duties arises, then we ought to do that
which is more of a duty, in other words Ross is telling that “When conflict of
duties arises we ought to act in accordance with a prima facie duty which has
a greater balance of rightness over wrongness”.
- example: Maria promised her son to be home early from work so they could have dinner
together. However, when Maria is about to go home, her boss had heart attack. Since
nobody is around except herself, Maria felt obligated to bring her boss to the hospital.
🞆Prima Facie Duty no.1
- Maria’s duty to fulfil her promise to her son to be home early to they can have a
dinner together.

🞆Prima Facie Duty no.2

- Maria’s duty to bring her boss at the hospital.
How do we know then that the one is more of a duty than the other
or how do we know on such duty has a greater balance of rightness
over wrongness?

🞆 Well first Ross believe that one had only one of the two prima facie
duties is our actual duty; and of course we cannot do both and this is
self-evident.
🞆 Now the second according to Ross we can absolutely have the right
opinion about which is more about the duty because it is always self-
evident.
🞆 .The prima facia duty is judged to be “more of a duty”, that
is, the most stringent duty, appears to be one’s actual duty.
🞆According to Ross there are rules of thumb that will guide
us in determining which of the conflicting duties is more
of a duty.
This are the SEVEN BASIC PRIMA FACIA
DUTIES:

🞆 Duty of fidelity: be faithful or to be loyal to a worthy cause

🞆 Duty of reparation: right the wrong we have done from others
🞆 Duty of gratitude: appreciate the services others have done to us
🞆 Duty of justice: be fair to everyone
🞆 Duty of beneficence: do good towards others
🞆 Duty of self-improvement: improve one’s self
🞆 Duty of non-maleficence: not to inflict evil injury, or harm
Right Based Moral Theory

🞆 Right Based Moral Theories hold that rights form the basis of
obligations because the best express a key purpose of morality: the
securing of liberties of other benefits from rights holders.
🞆 The PRC for RBT insists that, “ An action is right if (and because) in
performing it either (a) one does not violate the fundamental moral
rights of other, or (b) in cases where [there are conflicting rights, the
most important are protected]”
Two categories of Right

NEGATIVE POSITIVE
Negative rights are those
Positive rights are those
that says other people have
a duty to not interfere with that entitle someone to
my freedom. something.
There are also differences between moral right
and legal rights

- Moral rights exist independently from legal ones these are

also referred to as human rights
- Legal rights come from statutes enacted through a legislative
process like unusual search and seizure.
THANK YOU!