Essays academic service

Problem of inalienable rights for the will theory

And as mentioned above these atomic incidents also bond together in characteristic ways to form complex rights. The privilege on this first level entitles you to use your computer.

The claim correlates to a duty in every other person not to use your computer. You have several powers with respect to your claim—you may waive the claim granting others permission to touch the computerannul the claim abandoning the computer as your propertyor transfer the claim making the computer into someone else's property. Also on the second order, your immunity prevents others from altering your first-order claim over your computer.

Your immunity, that is, prevents others problem of inalienable rights for the will theory waiving, annulling, or transferring your claim over your computer. The four incidents together constitute a significant portion of your property right.

Of course all of these incidents are qualified: These qualifications to the incidents carve the contours of your property right, but they do not affect its basic shape. There may also be more incidents associated with ownership than shown in the figure above. A naval captain has an active privilege-right to walk the decks and an active power-right to order that the ship set sail.

A player in a chess tournament has a passive claim-right that his opponent not distract him, and a professor has a passive immunity-right that her university not fire her for publishing unpopular views.

The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-interference, while the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service. A right against assault is a classic example of a negative right, while a right to welfare assistance is a prototypical positive right Narveson 2001. Since both negative and positive rights are passive rights, some rights are neither negative nor positive.

Privileges and powers cannot be negative rights; and privileges, powers, and immunities cannot be positive rights.

It is sometimes said that negative rights are easier to satisfy than positive rights. Negative rights can be respected simply by each person refraining from interfering with each other, while it may be difficult or even impossible to fulfill everyone's positive rights if the sum of people's claims outstrips the resources available.

However, when it comes to the enforcement of rights, this difference disappears.

  1. Scanlon 2003, 2013 defends the position that rights are constraints on the discretion of individuals or institutions to act. He argues that in rationally endorsing some end, say the desire to write a book, one must logically endorse the means to that end; as a bare minimum one's own literacy.
  2. For many of its most strident supporters, the doctrine of human rights aims to provide a fundamentally legitimate moral basis for regulating the contemporary geo-political order. You may be free to join the march, even when both your knees are sprained.
  3. The universality of human rights is grounded in what are considered to be some basic, indispensable, attributes for human well-being, which all of us are deemed necessarily to share. Glendon 1991, 14 here draws out some of the detrimental practical consequences of the popular connection between rights and conclusive reasons that we saw above.
  4. Broadly speaking, philosophers generally agree on such issues as the formal properties of human rights, the object of human rights, and the force of human rights.

Funding a legal system that enforces citizens' negative rights against assault may require more resources than funding a welfare system that realizes citizens' positive rights to assistance.

As Holmes and Sunstein 1999, 43 put it, in the context of citizens' rights to state enforcement, all rights are positive. Moreover, the point is often made that the moral urgency of securing positive rights may be just as great as the moral urgency of securing negative rights Shue 1996.

Whatever is the justificatory basis for ascribing rights—autonomy, need, or something else—there might be just as strong a moral case for fulfilling a person's right to adequate nutrition as there is for protecting that person's right not to be assaulted.

The Will Theory and the Interest Theory 2. However, some diagrams of Hohfeldian incidents that we could construct do not correspond to any right. Rights are only those collections of Hohfeldian incidents that have a certain function or perhaps certain functions. To take an analogy: The question of the function of rights is the question of what rights do for those who hold them.

Before discussing the two major positions on this issue, we can survey some statements that theorists have made that may appear problem of inalienable rights for the will theory be describing which Hohfeldian incidents are rights: Rights tell us what the bearer is at liberty to do.

He is claiming that the other has a duty not to interfere. Consider, for example, Mill's famous assertion in Utilitarianism: When we call anything a person's right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it, either by the force of law, or by that of education and opinion… To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of.

Mill 1861, 54 As an analysis of the everyday concept of a right, Mill's assertion would be weak. Through history many have asserted, for example, that God has the right to command man; yet presumably no one asserting such a right would maintain that society ought to defend God in the possession of anything.

Indeed there seems nothing incoherent in the thought that individuals have a right not to be protected by society; yet this thought could not make sense on Mill's characterization of what rights are.

On Mill see also Hart 1982, 100—04. So where Mill's statement departs from the common understanding of rights, we should charitably read Mill as prescribing, instead of describing, usage. Many authors' pronouncements about rights are charitably interpreted as these kinds of exercises in stipulation, rather than as attempts to analyze the ordinary concept of rights.

To take an example from the scholarly literature, it is not uncommon to encounter a general statement that all rights are, or at least include, claim-rights see, e.

The statement that rights are claims is prescriptive for, not descriptive of, usage. Each theory presents itself as capturing an ordinary understanding of what rights do for those who hold them.

Which theory offers the better account of the functions of rights has been the subject of spirited dispute, literally for ages. More specifically, a will theorist asserts that the function of a right is to give its holder control over another's duty.

Your property right diagrammed in the figure above is a right, says the will theorist, because it contains a power to waive or annul, or transfer others' duties. In Hohfeldian terms, will theorists assert that every right includes a Hohfeldian power over a claim.

In colloquial terms, will theorists believe that all rights confer control over others' duties to act in particular ways. Interest theorists maintain that the function of a right is to further the right-holder's interests.

An owner has a right, according to the interest theorist, not because owners have choices, but because the ownership makes owners better off.

A promisee has a right because promisees have some interest in the performance of the promise, or alternatively some interest in being able to form voluntary bonds with others. Your rights, the interest theorist says, are the Hohfeldian incidents you have that are good for you.

Human Rights

The contest between will-based and interest-based theories of the function of rights has been waged for hundreds of years. Each theory has stronger and weaker points as an account of what rights do for rightholders. The will theory captures the powerful link between rights and normative control. To have a right is to have the ability to determine what others may and may not do, and so to exercise authority over a certain domain of affairs.

The resonant connection between rights and authority the authority to control what others may do is for will theorists a matter of definition. However, the will theory's account of the function of rights is unable to explain many rights that most think there are. Within the will theory there can be no such thing as an unwaivable right: Yet intuitively it would appear that unwaivable rights are some of the most important rights that we have: Moreover, since the will theorist holds that all rights confer sovereignty, she cannot acknowledge any rights in beings incapable of exercising sovereignty.

Within the will theory it is impossible for incompetents like infants, animals, and comatose adults to have rights. Yet we ordinarily would not doubt that these incompetents can have rights, for example the right not to be tortured MacCormick problem of inalienable rights for the will theory, 154—66.

Will theories also have difficulties explaining bare privilege-rights such as in the Hobbesian state of naturewhich are not rights of authority over others. The interest theory is more capacious than the will theory. It can accept as rights both unwaivable rights the possession of which may be good for their holders and the rights of incompetents who have interests that rights can protect. The interest theory also taps into the deeply plausible connection between holding rights and being better off.

However, the interest theory is also misaligned with any ordinary understanding of rights. We commonly accept that people can have interests in x without having a right to x; and contrariwise that people can have a right to x without having interests sufficient to explain this.

You may have a powerful interest in the lottery paying out for your spouse's winning ticket, but you have no right that the lottery pays out to your spouse. In the second category are many of the rights of office-holders and role-bearers Jones 1994, 31—32; Wenar 2013b. Whatever interest a judge may have in exercising her legal right to sentence a convict to life in prison, the judge's interests cannot possibly justify ascribing to her the power to make such a dramatic change in the convict's normative situation.

The difficulties of the interest theory have often been noted in Raz's version, which is perhaps the most prominent. Yet there appear to be many rights for which the interests of the putative right-holder are not sufficient to hold other person s to be under a duty.

For example, Raz himself allows that the interest of a journalist in protecting his sources is not itself sufficient reason to hold others to be under the corresponding duty Raz 1986, 179, 247—8. It is rather the interests of the general public in an active and independent media that grounds the journalist's right to protect his sources.

Nor does this difficulty only affect the rights of office-holders like journalists; Raz admits that weighty rights such as the rights of free expression and freedom of contract are not justified solely by the interests of the individual citizens who hold them Raz 1996a, 30—43, 131.

Or again, parents may have the right to receive child benefit payments from the state, but here only the interests of the children, and not the interests of the parents, could be sufficient to hold the state to be under a duty.

Raz's version of the interest theory continues to be the most widely-cited account of the function of rights, despite such concerns that are now commonplace in the specialist literature. Kramer's version of the interest theory, which specifies necessary conditions for holding a legal right, is the major contemporary alternative Kramer 2013, 246 n. Will theorists and interest theorists have developed their positions with increasing technical sophistication.

The issues that divide the two camps are clearly defined, and the debates between them are often intense. Kramer, Simmonds, and Steiner 1998, Van Duffel 2012a, Kramer 2013 The seemingly interminable debate between these two major theories has driven some to conclude that the debate itself rests on the mistaken premise that there is a single concept of a right for which these theories provide rival analyses Van Duffel 2012b, Hayward 2013.

The deadlock has encouraged other theorists to develop alternative positions on the function of rights. They do not turn on the right-holder's power over the duty of another, so they do not share the will theory's difficulty with unwaivable rights. They may, however, have more difficulties in explaining power-rights.

Demand theories also share the will-theory's challenges in explaining the rights of incompetents, and in explaining privilege-rights. Other recent analyses of what rights do for rightholders are varied. Scanlon 2003, 2013 defends the position that rights are constraints on the discretion of individuals or institutions to act. Scanlon's analysis is criticized problem of inalienable rights for the will theory Gilbert 2004Wenar 2013a ; Sreenivasan's and Wenar's analyses are critiqued in Kramer and Steiner 2007, May 2012.

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

Recently, theorists have attempted to make progress on the question of functionality by scrutinizing the claim-right in particular, and by shifting attention onto the corresponding duty. The promisor, for example, owes a duty of performance to the promisee. After all, not all duties are directed to specific others: The violation of any duty may be wrong it may be wrong not to give to charitybut the violation of a directed duty is a wronging of the being to whom the duty is owed: And unlike a mere wrong, the wronging of some being calls, ceteris paribus, for apology and compensation.

Cruft 2013 further argues that the violation of any duty owed to a being is disrespectful of that being. The question is what could possibly account for the extra significance of the duties that have direction. For instance, in a case of conflicting duties, both duties are directed to A iff A's authorization or failing that A's interests determine which duty should be performed.

The History of the Language of Rights Intellectual historians have tangled over the origins of rights. Yet insofar as it is really the emergence of the concept of a right that is at issue, the answer lies beyond the competence of the intellectual historian and within the domain of the anthropologist.