This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories

25 found
Order:
  1. added 2020-08-02
    Rights Correlativity.David Frydrych - forthcoming - In Henry Smith, Ted Sichelman & Shyam Balganesh (eds.), The Legacy of Wesley Hohfeld. Cambridge University Press.
    Rights Correlativity, forthcoming in THE LEGACY OF WESLEY HOHFELD: EDITED MAJOR WORKS, SELECT PERSONAL PAPERS, AND ORIGINAL COMMENTARIES Shyam Balganesh, Ted Sichelman & Henry Smith eds. (Cambridge University Press 2018). This chapter explicates and critically assesses RIGHTS CORRELATIVITY. Section II addresses three core issues. The first concerns the conceptual structure of the tethered positions: does correlativity mean that the positions’ features must be symmetrical? Are correlative rights and duties the “mirror images” of one another, or not? A second issue is (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  2. added 2020-08-02
    The Case Against the Theories of Rights.David Frydrych - 2020 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 40 (2):320-346.
    There is a long-standing debate about how best to explain rights—one dominated by two rivals, the Interest and Will theories. This article argues that, not only is each theory irredeemably flawed, the entire debate ought to be abandoned. Section two explains the debate and its constituent theories as a dispute over the criteria for the concept of a right, or for some subset of rights. Section three argues that each theory contains fatal idiosyncratic defects—ones that mostly differ from the canonical (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. added 2020-08-02
    What Is the Will Theory of Rights?David Frydrych - 2019 - Ratio Juris 32 (4):455-472.
    This article helps to clear up some misunderstandings about the Will Theory of rights. Section 2 briefly outlines the Theories of Rights. Section 3 elucidates some salient differences amongst self-described anti–Interest Theory accounts. Section 4 rebuts Carl Wellman’s and Arthur Ripstein’s respective arguments about the Will Theory differing from “Choice” or Kantian theories of a right. Section 5 then offers a candidate explanation of why people might subscribe to the Will Theory in the first place.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. added 2020-08-02
    Hohfeld Vs. The Legal Realists.David Frydrych - 2018 - Legal Theory 24 (4):291-344.
    2018 marked the centenary of Wesley Hohfeld’s untimely passing. Curiously, in recent years quite a few legal historians and philosophers have identified him as a Legal Realist. This article argues that Hohfeld was no such thing, that his work need not be understood in such lights, and that he in fact made a smaller contribution to jurisprudence than is generally believed. He has nothing to do with theories of official decision-making that identify “extra-legal” factors as the real drivers of judicial (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5. added 2020-08-02
    The Theories of Rights Debate.David Frydrych - 2018 - Jurisprudence 9 (3):566-588.
    This is the first comprehensive explanation and survey of the Interest-Will theories of rights debate. It elucidates the traditional understanding of it as a dispute over how best to explain A RIGHT and clarifies the theories’ competing criteria for that concept. The rest of the article then shows why recent developments are either problematic or simply fail to actually advance the debate. First, it is erroneous, as some theorists have done, to frame the entire debate in terms of competing explanations (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6. added 2020-08-02
    Kramer’s Delimiting Test for Legal Rights.David Frydrych - 2017 - American Journal of Jurisprudence 62 (2):197-207.
    Professor Matthew Kramer offers a delimiting ‘criterion’ or test for his Interest Theory of legal claim-rights. The ‘Minimum Sufficiency’ test is thought necessary because the Interest Theory is charged with being over-inclusive: it purportedly counts certain agents and entities as legal right-holders even though the law itself does not recognize them as such. This paper nonetheless argues that Kramer’s test is inadequate and unnecessary. It proceeds as follows. Section II offers a brief explanation of the Interest and Will Theories of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7. added 2020-07-16
    The Case Against the Theory of Rights.David Frydrych - 2020 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 40 (2):320-346.
    There is a long-standing debate about how best to explain rights—one dominated by two rivals, the Interest and Will theories. This article argues that, not only is each theory irredeemably flawed, the entire debate ought to be abandoned. Section two explains the debate and its constituent theories as a dispute over the criteria for the concept of a right, or for some subset of rights. Section three argues that each theory contains fatal idiosyncratic defects—ones that mostly differ from the canonical (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. added 2020-07-08
    Rights.Duncan Ivison - 2008 - Routledge.
    The language of rights pervades modern social and political discourse and yet there is deep disagreement amongst citizens, politicians and philosophers about just what they mean. Who has them? Who should have them? Who can claim them? What are the grounds upon which they can be claimed? How are they related to other important moral and political values such as community, virtue, autonomy, democracy and social justice? In this book, Duncan Ivison offers a unique and accessible integration of, and introduction (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  9. added 2020-06-03
    What Role for the State? (And a Comment on the Common Good).Matthew J. Lister - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Legal Philosophy 44 (1):124-132.
    In his _Natural Law and the Nature of Law_, Jonathan Crowe has written an important and interesting book, one that should be read by people interested in jurisprudence, ethics, and political philosophy. Its distinctive strength is in the way Crowe shows how much can be done within a natural law framework that does not assume a theological background. A distinctive feature of Crowe's approach to natural law, one that distinguishes it from other well-known approaches, is its argument that only a (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. added 2020-03-10
    Responsibility and Self-Defense: Can We Have It All?Adam Hosein - 2017 - Res Publica 23 (3):367-385.
    The role of responsibility in our common-sense morality of self-defense is complex. According to common-sense morality, one can sometimes use substantial, even deadly, force against people who are only minimally responsible for posing a threat to us. The role of responsibility in self-defense is thus limited. However, responsibility is still sometimes relevant. It sometime affects how much force you can use against a threatener: less if they are less responsible and more if they are more responsible. Is there a well-motivated (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  11. added 2019-10-02
    Towards a More Particularist View of Rights’ Stringency.Benedict Rumbold - 2019 - Res Publica 25 (2):211-233.
    For all their various disagreements, one point upon which rights theorists often agree is that it is simply part of the nature of rights that they tend to override, outweigh or exclude competing considerations in moral reasoning, that they have ‘peremptory force’, making ‘powerful demands’ that can only be overridden in ‘exceptional circumstances’, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016, p. 240). In this article I challenge this thought. My aim here is not to prove that the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12. added 2019-09-03
    چگونه هفت Sociopaths که حکومت چین در حال برنده شدن در جنگ جهانی سه و سه راه برای جلوگیری از آنها.Michael Richard Starks - 2019 - In خودکشی توسط دموکراسی یک موانع برای آمریکا و جهان. Las Vegas, NV USA: Reality Press. pp. 41-45.
    اولین چیزی که ما باید در ذهن داشته باشیم این است که زمانی که گفت که چین می گوید که این یا چین این کار را انجام می دهد ، ما از مردم چین صحبت نمی کنیم ، اما از Sociopaths که کنترل حزب کمونیست چین-چینی ، یعنی هفت قاتلان جامعه سالخورده (SSSSK) از th e کمیته ایستاده از حزب کمونیست چین و یا 25 نفر از اعضای پلی تکنیک و غیره. -/- برنامه های حزب کمونیست برای WW3 و سلطه (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. added 2018-10-24
    Abortion, Abandonment, and Positive Rights: The Limits of Compulsory Altruism*: RODERICK T. LONG.Roderick T. Long - 1993 - Social Philosophy and Policy 10 (1):166-191.
    We began with three propositions: that people have a right not to be treated as mere means to the ends of others, that a woman who voluntarily becomes pregnant nevertheless has the right to an abortion, and that a woman who voluntarily gives birth does not have a right to abandon her child until she finds a substitute caretaker. These propositions initially seemed inconsistent, for the prohibition on treating others as mere means appeared to rule out the possibility of positive (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  14. added 2018-09-07
    Moral Methodology and the Third Theory of Rights.Saladin Meckled-Garcia - unknown
    The paper engages the conceptual question of the nature of rights. First, moral methodology for developing criteria to judge the adequacy of theories for the concept of rights is discussed. Standard methodologies for conceptual theory, such as analysis of language practices, appealing to intuitions to test and correct hypotheses, and mixtures of these with appeals to substantive moral values, are shown to fail in important ways to give us reasons to adopt one or another view of the concept. An alternative (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  15. added 2018-02-09
    Ignorance, Beneficence, and Rights.Kieran Setiya - 2020 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 17 (1):56-74.
    I argue that ignorance of who will die makes a difference to the ethics of killing. It follows that reasons are subject to ‘specificity’: it can be rational to respond more strongly to facts that provide us with reasons than to the fact that such reasons exist. In the case of killing and letting die, these reasons are distinctively particular: they turn on personal acquaintance. The theory of rights must be, in part, a theory of this relation.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. added 2017-05-10
    Rights Modelling.David Frydrych - 2017 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 30 (1):125-157.
    This paper has four aims. First it distinguishes two kinds of philosophical accounts of the ‘formal’ features of rights: models and theories. Models outline the ‘conceptually basic’ types of rights (if indeed a given model deems there to be more than one), their differences, and their relationships with duties, liabilities, etc. Theories of rights posit a supposed ultimate purpose for all rights and provide criteria for determining what counts as ‘a right’ in the first place. Second, the paper argues that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17. added 2017-01-15
    Rights, Duties, and Moral Conflicts.Biasetti Pierfrancesco - 2014 - Etica E Politica (2):1042-1062.
    In this paper I would like to make a contribution to the debate on rights-talk and duties-talk relationship and priority by addressing the problem from a peculiar angle: that of moral conflicts and dilemma. My working hypothesis is that it should be possible to identify some basic and relevant normative features of rights-talk and duties-talk by observing how they modify the description of moral conflicts. I will try to show that both rights and duties posses original and irreducible normative features, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. added 2016-12-17
    Book Review: 'An Essay on Rights,' Hillel Steiner. [REVIEW]Frederick Danny - 1995 - Free Life 24:26-27.
    Hillel Steiner’s argument in this book is bold, imaginative and illuminating, despite being vitiated by some logical errors and a wholly impractical redistributive method.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. added 2016-06-07
    Schopenhauer on the Rights of Animals.Stephen Puryear - 2017 - European Journal of Philosophy 25 (2):250-269.
    I argue that Schopenhauer’s ascription of (moral) rights to animals flows naturally from his distinctive analysis of the concept of a right. In contrast to those who regard rights as fundamental and then cast wrongdoing as a matter of violating rights, he takes wrong (Unrecht) to be the more fundamental notion and defines the concept of a right (Recht) in its terms. He then offers an account of wrongdoing which makes it plausible to suppose that at least many animals can (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  20. added 2016-03-06
    Hohfeldian Normative Systems.Pierfrancesco Biasetti - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (4):951-959.
    Hohfeldian normative system are normative systems that can be described by means of the analytical framework expounded by Hohfeld in his two famous papers on the fundamental legal conceptions. In this article I analyze some features of this particular kind of normative systems. Hohfeld’s original idea was to design a universal tool capable of describing, at the most basic level, the web of normative relationships between persons created by a system of rules. My claim is, instead, that if we take (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  21. added 2016-03-06
    Infinite Regress and Hohfeld: A Comment on Hillel Steiner’s “Directed Duties and Inalienable Rights”.Pierfrancesco Biasetti - 2015 - Ethics 126 (1):139-152.
    In his article “Directed Duties and Inalienable Rights,” Hillel Steiner advances an argument to show that there cannot be inalienable rights. This “impossibility theorem,” as well as providing an interesting result by itself, could break the theoretical deadlock in the debate between proponents of interest theory, on the one hand, and proponents of will theory, on the other. In this article, I comment on Steiner’s argument, and I try to show why it does not work. I then expound a paradoxical (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  22. added 2015-12-16
    Self-Defense as Claim Right, Liberty, and Act-Specific Agent-Relative Prerogative.Uwe Steinhoff - 2016 - Law and Philosophy 35 (2):193-209.
    This paper is not so much concerned with the question under which circumstances self-defense is justified, but rather with other normative features of self-defense as well as with the source of the self-defense justification. I will argue that the aggressor’s rights-forfeiture alone – and hence the liberty-right of the defender to defend himself – cannot explain the intuitively obvious fact that a prohibition on self-defense would wrong victims of attack. This can only be explained by conceiving of self-defense also as (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  23. added 2015-09-08
    Steiner's Trilemma. A Critical Comment on Hillel Steiner's "Rational Rights".Eduardo Rivera-López - 1995 - Analyse & Kritik 17 (2):232-235.
    I try to show that Steiner's theory has very implausible normative consequences since it does not accept the prima facie character or rights. This theory is unable to solve the conflicts of interests in which the only intuitively plausible solution consists in overriding someone's rights.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. added 2014-08-16
    Pro‐Tanto Versus Absolute Rights.Danny Frederick - 2014 - Philosophical Forum 45 (4):375-394.
    Judith Jarvis Thomson and others contend that rights are pro-tanto rather than absolute, that is, that rights may permissibly be infringed in some circumstances. Alan Gewirth maintains that there are some rights that are absolute because infringing them would amount to unspeakable evil. However, there seem to be possible circumstances in which it would be permissible to infringe even those rights. Specificationists, such as Gerald Gaus, Russ Shafer-Landau, Hillel Steiner and Kit Wellman, argue that all rights are absolute because they (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  25. added 2014-04-13
    Choices, Interests, and Potentiality: What Distinguishes Bearers of Rights? [REVIEW]Anna-Karin Margareta Andersson - 2013 - Journal of Value Inquiry 47 (3):175-190.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations