When did Kant believe that it is permissible to lie? Never. In Kant’s theory, a maxim is: a priciple of action the one gives to oneself.

If you lie to someone, or make a promise that you do not intend to keep, you treat others as means, not as ends. But for Kant, lying is wrong whatever reason you have for the lie. Kant is deeply opposed to utilitarian theories, according to which lying to someone to make him happier is entirely justified.

Kant states that the maxim of his action is, “When I believe my- self to be in need of money I shall borrow money and promise to repay it, even though I know that this will never happen.”8 Such a maxim cannot be universalized without contradiction; thus, it cannot become a universal law.

applied to the lying promise because the means of the outcome of the lying promise can be either good or bad to someone. To Kant the only thing that is good without qualification is good will. Good will is in comparison to absolute good and it never has and means end.

Kant believed that the shared ability of humans to reason should be the basis of morality, and that it is the ability to reason that makes humans morally significant. He, therefore, believed that all humans should have the right to common dignity and respect.

Kant means that a good will is “good without qualification” as such an absolute good in-itself, universally good in every instance and never merely as good to some yet further end. Kant’s point is that to be universally and absolutely good, something must be good in every instance of its occurrence.

Philosophers distinguish between legal rights and moral rights. Legal rights are liberties or protections individuals have because some law says they do. First, humans do not make moral rights, nor can we unmake them. Second, moral rights are not limited to the citizens of a particular nation, at a particular time.

1. Moral Rights. A right is a justified claim, entitlement or assertion of what a rights-holder is due. For a person to have the moral right to have, get, or do something, there must be a moral basis or justification for the claim. These bases or justifications are different for different categories of rights.

Human rights are primarily a species of moral rights in that they highlight certain priority moral values that cannot be identified with any actual set of institutionalised rights and duties. Because human rights derive from important human interests and needs, it is natural to expect legal protection of human rights.

Human rights are best thought of, therefore, as being both moral and legal rights. The legitimacy claims of human rights are tied to their status as moral rights.

The proportionality and gradualism requirements mandate that 1) the restriction must be balanced against any legitimate objective of general interest that the restriction aims to pursue, 2) the measure must be voluntary whenever possible, and 3) the restrictive measures are justifiable only if there are no less …

Finnis believes in some absolute human rights i.e. the right not to have a life taken directly as a means to further end; the right not to be deprived or to be required to deprive oneself from pro-creative activity.

A primarily ethical justification of human rights focuses on the importance of the human interests they are meant to protect. The “human being” here is one who has an interest in leading, and the basic right to lead, a good life, and “rights” are means to make this possible for everyone.

The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights, whereas human rights also comprise positive rights.

Basic goods are irreducible, self-evident, “and even unquestionable.” To Finnis, every reasonable person would assent to the value of these basic goods as objects of human striving, and these basic goods are “indemonstrable but self-evident principles [that shape] our practical reasoning.” By stating that something is …

For Finnis there are seven basic goods; life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability of friendship, practical reasonableness and religion.

Basic goods include nutritious food, clean water, sanitation, health services, education services, housing, electricity, and human security services.

Practical Examples The first example of natural law includes the idea that it is universally accepted and understood that killing a human being is wrong. However, it is also universally accepted that punishing someone for killing that person is right.