Late philosopher Alan Gewirth introduced the Principle of Generic Consistency, or the PGC, which says that moral agents ought to respect the generic rights of freedom and well-being because they are implicit in every action and logically impossible to deny.

Many dictionaries have defined 'ought' as moral obligation but some philosophers have defined ought as consistency with a particular moral theory. For example, Greenspan has defined ought as practical reason while Harris defined ought as utilitarianism. Basically, the idea here is that whenever we say that we "ought" to do something, does that mean we should protect individual autonomy or protect the interests of the general population.

When we express ought as a moral obligation, could ought be defined as protecting the rights to freedom and well-being as contextualized by Alan Gewirth's philosophy?

  • 1
    This seems to be not very dissimilar to your last question. Is there a reason you are asking them separately? – virmaior Jan 1 '15 at 19:49

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.