A Right to Do Wrong

Author’s Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course + Code:
Submission Date:
Essay
In any given society that is ruled by independence contains morals. These morals come with their rights, and they must be respected to preserve uprightness. Having the right to do wrong means that the right holder has the freedom to make choices to do wrong without the interference of external factors such as society or government (Waldron, 21). In the journal A Right to do wrong written by Waldron. Argues that if individuals in the community take all the moral rights seriously, they must accept his statement about the right to do wrong (Waldron, 23). Waldron argues that having the choice to do the wrong thing creates diversity, which results in the growth and development of the whole society.
On the other hand, the paradox of a right to do wrong is dangerous since it impends to introduce confusion between two or more subjects (Waldron, 22). This threat cannot be easily removed; thus, people should be cautious. People's opinions on morality differ in real life; this is because they judge things based on their backgrounds (Waldron, 23). Things that can be morally wrong in a particular society can be morally upright in another community. For instance, athletes have a right to compete with racially selected people, but in real life, some countries do not allow this action.
Waldron believes in the right to do wrong and thus urges the society and government to give their citizens the chance to exercise their moral acts, which could be regarded as wrong in the moral point of view. He defends his belief by using various paradoxes. Firstly, he defends himself by giving clear clarifications on the meaning of a right do wrong (Waldron, 23). He states that a right to harm can be referred to as a morally wrong action, but the action of the person is a moral right. This means that people should not engage in immoral acts, but they have the choice to do so. Waldron says that society misunderstands this phrase and thinks it supports immoral acts in the community. Jeremy uses some paradox to defend his arguments on his statement (Waldron, 29). For example, he says it is morally wrong for an individual to contribute his money to support political campaigns for a racist politician. However, the person has the moral right to do so since he does it willingly, and the law has to acknowledge that.
In another scenario, he says that it is morally wrong for an individual who has won a considerable amount from the lottery to spend it by purchasing racehorses and expensive beer instead of helping the needy. He says that this person also has the moral right to do what he wants with his money, even if it is conflicting with the moral views of the society (Waldron, 30). Waldron's arguments are not meant to advocate for immoral behaviours of individuals, but they advocate for a suitable legal rule for what is morally wrong or right. He states that he does not understand why the laws of society and the government consider such acts to be wrong. According to Waldron, a right to do wrong does not defend the rightness or wrongness of people's actions, but instead, it prevents individuals from interfering with other actions (Waldron, 31). This means that people should not interfere with the wrongdoings of the right person. On the other hand, his argument does not give the rights holder the chance to do wrongs.
Additionally, some other researchers say that a late-term abortion can be termed as morally wrong by the government or society. But it is the choice of the women to do so as they have viable reasons for doing the act. Thus, they must enjoy their moral right without external interference. The researchers state that a right to do wrong must correspond to the duty of others (Waldron, 34). Hence, these duties should be not only negative ones but also positive ones. For instance, while someone decides to vote for a racist party is a right to do wrong. This right corresponds with negative duties such as voting for the wrong person (Waldron, 32). But does not interfere with personal interests as it gives him the chance to vote for the person of his choice. Thus the voter enjoys the positivism of this act since he enjoys the right to vote for the racist.
Waldron says that people should keep in mind that the rights matter most in protecting the choices and interests of the rights holder from the external interference, but does not validate or justify them in doing the wrong things (Waldron, 27)...