国外paper写作-权利和义务

HotEssay论文网（hotessay.cn）-专业paper写作,report写作辅导中心国外paper写作-权利和义务Rights and obligations are often treated as a pair of interrelated concepts. However, the relevance between rights and obligations is not as easily ascertained as it appears. It is even more so when it comes to the relationship between moral rights and moral obligations. The relevance between rights and obligations is outlined by four separate statements by Ross. They include: First, As right to B means that Bs obligation for A; Second, Bs obligation to A implies that A has right to B; Third, As right to B implies that A has an obligation to B as well; Fourth, A has an obligation for B Means that A also has right to B (Ross, 1930). The first statement indicates that the right of A to ask B to do something is equal to B's obligation for A. Statement two is the opposite of statement one. Statement three indicates that As right to let B do something for him implies that A has an obligation to do another thing for B. the obligations of A and B for each other may be similar. For example, a person's right to truth means that he has the obligation to tell the truth as well. The obligations of A and B can also be of different kinds. For example, a person's right to seek obedience from another person implies that he has the obligation of ruling properly.权利和义务通常被视为一对相互关联的概念。但是，权利和义务之间的关系并不象表面上那样容易确定。当涉及到道德权利和道德义务之间的关系时更是如此。权利和义务之间的相关性由罗斯的四项独立声明概述。它们包括:第一，A对B的权利意味着B对A的义务;第二，B对A的义务意味着A对B有权利;第三，A对B的权利意味着A对B也有义务;第四，A对B有义务意味着A也有权利对B (Ross, 1930)。表述一表明，A要求B做某事的权利等于B对A的义务。表述二与表述一相反。表述三表明，A让B为他做某事的权利意味着A有义务为B做另一件事。例如，一个人有权知道真相意味着他也有义务讲出真相。A和B的义务也可以是不同的种类。例如，一个人从另一个人那里寻求服从的权利意味着他有义务正确地统治。The above statements of the relevance between rights and obligations can also be expressed by other concepts, such as the "moral relevance" of rights and obligations. Moral relevance aims to show that a person's ownership of rights is based on his performance of the corresponding obligation as a decisive condition. Obligations is the cost of rights, which is similar to the meaning of statement three. The "logical relevance" of rights and obligations, on the other hand, is a different idea. It does not affirm that a person's possession of rights must be conditioned on his fulfillment of certain obligations. That is, the rights holder's own fulfillment of his obligations is not the logical basis for his rights. Instead, only when ones rights are logically related to the obligations for others, should the fulfillment of the obligations for others as the decisive conditions. Similarly, a persons obligations for others exist on the conditions that others have logically corresponding rights. The two points in this "logical relevance" of rights and obligations are the same as in statement one and two. Obviously, the relevance between rights and obligations is fully expressed through the above statements in theory. However, in practice, these statements are not easily and fully proved. The relevance between rights and obligations faces a number of problems. In this essay, problems associated with rights and moral obligations will be discussed from the moral perspective.上述关于权利和义务之间的相关性的陈述也可以用其他概念来表达，如权利和义务的“道德相关性”。道德关联旨在表明一个人的权利所有权是建立在他履行相应义务的基础上的一个决定性条件。义务是权利的成本，这与表述三的意思相似。另一方面，权利和义务的“逻辑关联”是另一个概念。它并不确定一个人对权利的占有必须以他履行某些义务为条件。也就是说，权利持有人自己履行义务并不是其权利的逻辑基础。相反，只有当一个人的权利在逻辑上与他人的义务相关时，才应该以履行他人的义务为决定性条件。同样，一个人对他人的义务存在于他人拥有逻辑上相应的权利的条件下。这种权利和义务的“逻辑关联”与表述一和表述二相同。显然，权利与义务之间的关联性在理论上通过上述表述得到了充分的表达。然而，在实践中，这些说法并不容易得到充分的证明。权利和义务之间的相关性面临着许多问题。在这篇文章中，将从道德的角度来讨论与权利和道德义务相关的问题。From a moral point of view, the major problem encountered with the relevance between rights and obligations is that if all obligations grant rights of others as expressed in the "logical relevance" claims, then moral values such as generosity, benevolence, and kindness become not only obligations, but also rights of people. However, it is questionable whether a generous and benevolent person or, any person, can justifiably claim to have the moral right to be treated generously and benevolently. As is often pointed out, where one person has rights over another, there is the other person's obligation to let him exercise the rights. Putting this statement in reverse order, it may not be true. This is because there is a moral obligation of benevolence that does not translate to corresponding rights. This issue has been the concern of some ethicists. For example, as argued by Frankena in Ethics, if X has a right to Y, then Y has an obligation for X. Although rights and obligations are related in general, X does not necessarily have the right to demand benevolence from Y (Frankena, 1973). Obviously, the moral obligation involved here cannot be compared with the debtor's obligation to pay debts to creditors or the action to keep promises. It is impossible for a moral obligation to be as definitive and indisputable as physical objects, like the obligation of debts and promises (Ross, 1930). Perhaps it is for this rea