W tekście zajmujemy się przeobrażeniami, jakie na przestrzeni wielu stuleci zaszły w rozumieniu uprawnień. W związku z tym interesują nas też zmiany w roli nadawanej skorelowanym z nimi obowiązkom oraz sprawiedliwości. Wychodząc od pierwotnego (obiektywnego) sensu praw jako przedmiotu sprawiedliwości, przechodzimy do nowożytnego podmiotowego (subiektywnego) ich rozumienia. Twierdzimy, że konsekwencją opisywanej transformacji jest zmiana struktury uzasadnienia praw. Mamy na myśli to, że prawa, pierwotnie uzasadniane regułami sprawiedliwości i równoważne obowiązkom, stały się od sprawiedliwości niezależne, a nawet, że tę ostatnią zaczęto (...) rozumieć jako regułę urzeczywistniania autonomicznie ustanawianych benefitów (czyli substancjalnie wziętych praw). (shrink)

Since certain temporal aspects of the relation between duties, rights, and the interests that rights protect have not been fully theorized, a puzzle arises when we come to consider whether and how entities such as members of future generations, fetuses, deceased persons, and unconscious persons are able to possess rights. This paper evolves a unified structure for attributing the ability to possess rights to such entities. It demonstrates that while, under any cogent theory of rights-attributions, rights and duties must be (...) strictly contemporaneous, the interests that rights protect need not temporally coincide with those rights. (shrink)

Are there moral rights to do moral wrong? A right to do wrong is a right that others not interfere with the right-holder’s wrongdoing. It is a right against enforcement of duty, that is a right that others not interfere with one’s violation of one’s own obligations. The strongest reason for moral rights to do moral wrong is grounded in the value of personal autonomy. Having a measure of protected choice (that is a right) to do wrong is a condition (...) for an autonomous life and for autonomous moral self-constitution. This view has its critics. Responding to these objections reveals that none refute the coherence of the concept of a ‘moral right to do moral wrong’. At most, some objections successfully challenge the weight and frequency of the personal autonomy reasons for such rights. Autonomy-based moral rights to do moral wrong are therefore conceptually possible as well as, at least on occasion, actual. (shrink)

Rights dominate most modern understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Rights structure the forms of our governments, the contents of our laws, and the shape of morality as we perceive it. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.

In this chapter, I propose the mechanism of cognitive enhancement based on studies of cognitive-enhancing drugs and behavioral training. I argue that there are mechanistic differences between cognitive-enhancing drugs and behavioral training due to their different enhancing effects. I also suggest possible mechanisms for cognitive-enhancing drugs and behavioral training and for the synergistic effects of their simultaneous application.