Precis of <i>Rights and Demands: A Foundational Inquiry</i>

Talk of “rights” is notoriously ambiguous. Rights and Demands—henceforth R&D—focuses on a particular idea right.1 I call the corresponding rights “demand-rights”. Crucially, to have demand-right action standing or authority demand that right's addressee. Demand-rights are clear practical utility. Your understanding given against you may be enough for act accordingly, without my needing exercise right. It clearly important understand how we accrue demand-rights. That central task book. In first part book position discussion demand-rights within contemporary theory. This tends focus what referred as claims, jurist Wesley Hohfeld's suggestion A's claim B B's phi-ing correlative (and equivalent) duty A phi. someone generally directed duty. What duty? question has been theory—but there no consensus an answer. theorists do tend agree one thing: comprises, at least in part, plain duty—a duty, period. argue this “duty-plus” assumption questionable.2 What, then, claims? overlooked remark Hohfeld's, transferred from legal realm everyday life, suggests following: phi.3 terms, it claims Further, (or obligation) phi How—at deepest level—is possible person standing? problem. solution cannot found most prominent theories.4 second book, promises agreements. they ground acknowledged. How can their doing so explained? Following Hume, promise assume promissory obligation matter moral requirement. faces two significant objections. First, parcel any promise, its content, consequences performing it. Second, obligation, equivalent promisee. Focusing Thomas Scanlon's principle account, such accounts accommodate these points.5 then develop own account obligation. crucially invokes joint commitment—an take human life society. commitment more persons, who committed one. basic case both becoming ceasing jointly requires appropriate, open expressions readiness each parties conditions common knowledge.6 Being normative matter: subject, one, exclusionary constraint. other words, something that, ought do. The “ought” exclusionary: overridden by some considerations, but excludes consideration others, including one's inclinations desires such. Though qualifier “moral” differently interpreted, not specifically one.7 Any is, put generally, body, broad sense “do”. For example, endorse body certain plan. More fully, emulate, relevant respects, single endorser plan question, virtue several actions utterances parties. obligations.8 observe intuitively, conformity another. justify intuition reference fact acting contrary party acted constraint which brief, co-author. As explain, particular, plausible interpretation Joel Feinberg: demanding right, own.9 Two points about follows. only another, whether and, if so, normativity enters into picture. If grounded commitment, however, addressee will subject commitment. So indeed all equal, perform question.10 even when our overridden, conform, things considered, grounds remain. still owe retain conform Having concluded demand-rights, agreements promises. propose are—in clearest cases—joint decisions, constituted plan, entered specific type explicit process. Their differences relatively superficial, depending process involved.11 Drawing previous work, briefly large variety phenomena incorporate commitments therefore These include intending together, mutual recognition, collective attitudes.12 Is demand-rights? No emerged theories, reasons thinking none.13 demand-rights—demand-rights whose existence demonstrated argument, appeal immediate basis right? At outset third review arguments find them wanting. instance, Hart's famous argument natural shows immunity, same thing. Nor does “just are” convince. demand-right—the action—cannot just “be there”. intelligible ground. Turning another conduct members “the community”, doubtful unless construe quoted phrase terms actual There well many communities members, all-encompassing community kind possibility, currently place. Many judgements appropriate whom stem location community.14 Others stake pervasive phenomenon recognition understood explain.15 consider possibility priori humans capable being committed, establishment require parties’ Even allows this, refute conjecture.16 emphasize issue here consistent with according characterizations theory.17 Often, Jeremy Bentham, institutional considered sole primary rights. law, questions institutions.18 discuss systems abstractly conceived. After distinguishing between analogues proper, offer affirmative Next, “exist” population, focusing relating opposed those incorporated First: population rules system? question. order answer needs system, plausibility. potential criteria adequacy discussed, eight candidate accounts—most drawn literature—are considered. last core. positive also satisfy listed adequacy. holder question: LS, exists someone's phi-ing, persons's phi-ing? do.19 said, true population. note law counteract proliferation should desire, restricting legally permissible enforcers, enforcements, Human major concern, yet nature, hotly contested. Thus, sometimes viewed rights, Within either conception, conceived light far presented Demands.20 strongly suggest said legal, objects compliance associated standards, applicable ways would possible. sound, main takeaways two. suffices pertinent necessary also. Given value exercised simply present, point seem concerning. optimistic matter. Our commitments, along ensuing obligations, under control. We equally powerful, themselves forced ratifying involve subjection. make morally sound.