Uh Oh

From my reading notes on Amartya Sen's article "Rights and Agency" taken while I was studying for my comprehensive exam two years ago:

* Denotes my comments on the content of the preceding page.

22 Ay(x) = person x may do the act himself
Ax(y) = person y may do the act himself.
Based on all this stuff the following holds:
1) DN, VN and SN are bilaterally independent (none along entails any of the others).
2) Any two of DN, VN and SN together entail the third.
* This shit is getting ridiculously complicated. I’m changing it to make it easier. Hope I don’t completely screw it up.
---
26 VR: Is it the case that even if Harry has no obligation to stop George from taking the job, George still may not take it?
DR: Is it the case that even if Harry has no obligation to stop George from taking the job, then, Harry, may not take it?
The answers depend upon our view of integrity.
Integrity Respect = a general respect for integrity no matter whose.
Integrity Responsibility = a personal responsibility for one’s own integrity.
* I’m really losing Sen here but whatever.
From integrity respect, neither VR or DR comes into play. “No matter who takes the job and who views it, the same unfavorable picture of involvement in chemical and biological warfare, by someone who believes such involvement to be wrong, comes through.
However, from integrity responsibility, both VR and DR play in.
* Seriously man, WTF?
---
27 Tie Aims – people having different aims related to their own kith and kin.
Tie Respect – everyone having different aims related to their own kith and kin but valuing acts directly responsive to ties.
Tie Aims goes with VR – x may do something favoring his own children vis-à-vis y’s children but y – sharing the same tie aimed morality – must try to stop x from doing this.
Tie Respect goes with DR – parents should benefit their own children but it’s not so good if helpful strangers take the same actions.
Tie Respect also goes with SR – “Ed may do something helping his own children at the cost of Bill’s children, while Bill may not do that thing helping Ed’s children (not because Bill values benefits to Ed’s children differently from the way Ed does, but both value the action of someone helping his own children himself.)”
* I give up. Amartya Sen should be shot.

The second reader on my committee has raised an objection to part of my proposal based on this article. Clearly, I do not understand this article.