Question

What does "the right is prior to the good" mean? How does it contrast with views where "the good is prior to the right"?

Answer 1

It means I.e
The right is prior to the good is to show that teleological hypotheses, which put the great before the right, lead to unrealistic standardizing results. There are circumstances, it is contended, in which putting the great preceding the correct involves that we should do things that can't be directly for us to do. Thusly, goodness can't (generally) clarify an activity's rightness. This demonstrates what is correct must be resolved freely of the great.

I contend that these implied counterexamples to teleology neglect to build up that the privilege must be preceding the great. Actually, putting the privilege before the great can prompt arrangements of should explanations which possibly strife with the rule that 'should' infers 'can'. I contend that no conceivable moral hypothesis can figure out what is correct autonomously of a thought of significant worth or goodness. Each conceivable moral hypothesis needs a mapping from goodness to rightness, which suggests that privilege can't be preceding the great.

- It appear differently in relation to see where 'the good is prior to the right by following explanation:

This is really an expression utilized in political theory. There are two different ways to consider how the state ought to be composed: the first is through organizing the great, and the second is through organizing rights.

A characteristic law or lawful moralist society would state that the "great" is preceding the "right": that is, the general public's origination of the great is to have need over the privileges of the people that influence it to up. This isn't equivalent to stating that individuals don't have rights in this framework, however that when rights and the origination of the great conflict, the origination of the great normally wins.

A general public demonstrated in the liberal custom would state the second one. Rights are preceding the state's origination of the great - in actuality, the state ought to be freethinker and impartial to any origination of the great and ought to rather go for ensuring the privileges of its kin (John Rawls is near this view).

Where as in right is before the great we put the great preceding the right, lead to unrealistic regularizing results.