One writer defines Privacy as "freedom from inappropriate judgment of others".
a.) Is this a good definition of privacy? Why or why not?
In my personal opinion, I think it is not a good definition of what privacy is. Privacy isn't just "freedom form inappropriate judgment of others", it is something rather more than that. Privacy, for me, is the right to keep personal things, ideas, thoughts, and information secret and free from the knowledge of other people. In other words, privacy is the right to prevent others to know something that may trigger them to make an inappropriate judgment, or in other words the right to be free from intrusion from others. Inappropriate judgment comes after one party has known information while privacy is preventing them to know it.
b.) Suppose you use this definition. Should people have a positive(claim-right) right for this kind of privacy? Why or why not? Should people have a negative(liberty) right for this kind of privacy? Why or why not?
In this kind of definition of privacy, people have both the positive(claim-right) and the negative(liberty) rights, in my own opinion. It is my negative right to be free from intrusion and business of the other people aonsidering that they cannot make inappropriate judgment to me and the information I possess acquire and use. My right to privacy enables me to be free from any unfair and and inappropriate treatment of others with regard to what my personal data and information. On the other hand, it is also the same with other people. It is my positive(liberty) right to require me not to intrude or give attention to thier activities and personal data because they have the right of privacy. Their right enables to control my actions not to make inappropriate judgment and intrusion to their own personal businesses. This is also the same to my side. Others, too, have their positive rights that I am able to limit their actions through my right of privacy, my right to be free from inappropriate judgment of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment