Rights theory vs Kantian Ethics?

Can someone distinguish between the two, preferably with an example? To me, they both seem to be saying the same thing- people have rights and should be treated with respect.

Here is one of the quotes central to understanding part of Immanuel Kant’s Ethical Doctrine: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”

Kant held that human beings had some innate status, and that therefore we should accord human beings with respect and treat them with dignity. Hence, in consonance with treating human beings with dignity, we should not use them as a means to an end (like a cog in a machine), but only as ends in themselves (because they are human and worthy of dignity and respect).

Rights theory shares some parallel. Namely, that it too regards human beings as special to the point where we have these things called ‘rights’. And, that these fundamental rights should not be infringed. But, I wouldn’t agree that it says you should treat people with respect per se, rather, it only says we shouldn’t violate other people’s rights. The text uses the example of free speech and that we should ‘respect’ others’ free speech; really focus on the fact that this ‘respect’ is to be given because of right. So, when you are saying people should be treated with respect you’re ignoring the reason that you may have to treat people with respect, namely, because they have rights and in some contexts, not infringing these rights means treating people with ‘respect’.

Let’s go to the sweatshop example. Kant would say humans are special and so should be accorded dignity and respect, and that you cannot use them as a mere means to an end. In a sweat shop he should say the environment of a sweatshop is such that the workers are not being accorded with dignity and respect that should be accorded to them because they are people. Instead, they are merely being used as a means to an end (to create the shoes the factory produces), and so this is not ethically good beahviour.

A rights theorist would say that these humans are special and that they have certain rights. If the sweatshop is not ethically good behaviour, then it means that a certain right was violated. Let’s just assert for a moment that humans have a right to a fair wage or fair working conditions. Then, the rights theorist would say this sweatshop environment does not give these workers good working conditions, nor pay them a fair wage, and so because it violates a right, therefore it is not ethically good behaviour. Notice how respect isn’t particularly relevant here, it is only identifying the right in question, and asking whether the business practice violated the right.

There is considerably more complexity to these Ethical theories, but to understand Rights theories more closely, just understand that it’s not good to violate a right, so focus on identifying the relevant rights and whether the business practices violate those rights.

wow, great response. definitely clears it up. thanks!