Rethinking moral claim rights

The notion of rights is ubiquitous in philosophical discourse. As Allen Buchanan put it over thirty years ago, ‘Future historians moral and political philosophy may well label our period the Age Rights’.1 This not only popular, but also complex. legal scholar W. N. Hohfeld famously suggested, are susceptible to multiple interpretations: they can be claims, liberties, powers, or immunities.2 Despite this variation, consensus view that core instance a right claim right.3 In domain, designate binary relation between right-holder duty-bearer, where former stands distinctive position vis-à-vis latter.4 While there controversy as what, precisely, amounts to, idea capture seldom into question. article, I challenge way thinking. argue language ill suited for purpose picking out position.5 show several disambiguations, just itself is. From this, conclude we should either no longer appeal concept theorizing rethink its purpose. article proceeds follows. Section II, set two desiderata plausible definition satisfy. should: (a) (b) account paradigmatic instances ordinary language. III, most prominent accounts fail meet desideratum (b). Of course, fact unsatisfactory does mean satisfactory could developed. To support stronger claim, IV, offer systematization rights. suggest greatest common denominator such empowerment, statements about track justification certain forms empowerment (justification statements) particular status confers on individuals (status statements). explain V, twofold connection reveals that, structural reasons, cannot jointly satisfied. No both pick position. VI, consider three possible implications conclusion. One abandon theorizing. Another, less drastic possibility light disjunctive structure, given different A third possibility, those persuaded by my arguments, treat discussion setting any meet. VII concludes. Before start, let me make some clarifications. My focuses specifically, assumed shall towards end ambiguities render powerful tool advocacy. remain silent suitability technical purposes reasoning. Since are, plausibly, from philosophy, concerns raised need extend domain. Finally, note terminology. what follows, ‘claim rights’, ‘directed duties’ (the violation which wrongs others), ‘duties owed others’, equivalent. terminological choice line with standard use literature.6 An evaluation presupposes an work want do If job found, will have reason doubt usefulness concept, at least respect originally intended For analogy, society conceptual scheme ours, types cutlery: forks spives. Forks defined familiar way, tools up solid food. spife disjunctive: points scooping liquid food cutting We these concepts help us effectively select ‘tools eating’. happens, kinds objects fit category ‘spives’: (in world) call spoons knives. parallel society, when asking spife, one mind spoon knife. Without further specification, therefore getting something did want. ‘spife’, seems, recipe confusion: efficiently. Instead having concept—‘tools scoop cut food’—it would much better two: ‘spoons’ ‘knives’ selecting specific pieces cutlery. If, mutatis mutandis, were similarly unable theorizing, it, So, theorizing? Claim rights, noted Introduction, meant (that is, right-holders) hold others duty-bearers). Claim-rights relations ‘bipolar’, sense always involving relata: duty-bearer hand, claim-right-holder other.7 Each pole within marked attributes. bears duties: she bound oughts. other possesses correlative This, turn, puts her special corresponding duties, her. claim-right-holder, then, ‘more’ than being mere beneficiary someone's duty. good must elucidate precisely to: means (or, equivalently, duty wronged violation). addition, statements. desideratum. Leif Wenar theorists ‘take extensional primary success’.8 And Matthew Kramer confirms, ‘nobody has ever denied understandings important anchor one's rights-holding’.9 say successful every conceivable ordinary-language Ordinary messy, theory require more disciplined term find day-to-day discourse.10 But if failed encompass talk, ask ourselves whether capturing really intuitively associated altogether different. Emphasis invites objection art, introduced disambiguate meanings ‘right’ law. language, talk simpliciter, Hohfeldian incident particular. how isolate ‘a right’ specifically?11 doesn't pose insurmountable obstacle inquiry, reasons. First, while many implicate bundles incidents, often lie their heart.12 example, whenever insist variety objects—shelter, life, free speech, property, so on—we typically imply, among things, secure access them.13 When denied, infer agents failing discharge hence violated. Second, test assertion involve violations asserted wrong particular, opposed simpliciter. intuitive answers affirmative, then we'll know ‘right’, statement under consideration, right’. a) Distinctive vindicates (i.e., addressee directed who violation) stand duty-bearers.14 b) Consistency claim-rights fits rights; neither over-generates nor under-generates them relative become apparent, meeting proves challenging. fact, am right, impossible. Philosophical dominated dispute interest theories.15 briefly examine theories fare desiderata. Doing going ground. Although exercise seem little tedious, provides necessary background argument later sections. Let start theory, prominently defended H. L. A. Hart Hillel Steiner others.16 theorist, possess power control another's demand/enforce performance, waive seek compensation captures aspect phenomenology possession. After all, your me, performance ‘mine’, mine, normative it. independent appeal, meets (a). It assigns claim-right-holders position, namely others' duties. (b)? Here, critics pointed out, encounters difficulties, rights.17 On capacity choice—hence duties—is condition Consequently, entities—such children, people severe mental disabilities, non-human animals—who lack capacity.18 What more, room so-called inalienable Since, duty, including rights—that waived—are impossibility.19 sum, satisfies (a), struggles now turn main competitor. According Joseph Raz others, weighty enough justify duty.20 too, appeal. natural key explaining existence. Many rights—to bodily integrity, food, on—appear interest-theory rationale. Furthermore, ‘being holder justifies duty’ aptly described Whoever duty-bearer. thus But, like since duties justified interests appear give rise rights.21 Consider assist elderly lady struggling cross street. uniquely positioned her, very personal cost, ought Yet, deny helped same as, say, baker pay bread rolls bought him morning. looks matter beneficence, although case clear, sufficient generate right.22 before noted, cases X plausibly X, illustration, property cheap ornament gifted cousin. possessing ornament. Finding rather ugly, bottom closet ago forgotten Under construal situation, place strong obligations steal it.23 respond relevant ornament, decides it: broader freedom. himself admits, ‘I taking without permission’.24 That freedom-interest involved. cases, theorist right. Raz's difficulty involves suggesting owning object, I, together everyone else well-functioning system property. individuals, everyone's interests: good. Such common-good ones right-holder's public's ‘harmoniously interwoven’: ‘benefiting benefiting them, … served’.25 weight individual ‘augmented’ thereby justifying (property) response allow avoid under-generation charge, cost making satisfy (a).26 For, explains interests, else's (namely, good), perspective said comes generating else's. strikes significant price pay, greater accepting costs under-generation.27 theories—in original formulations—both each pointing They difficulties satisfying aim highlighting been induce change heart theories' advocates. Objections around while, yet literature continues broadly divided camps, side ‘biting bullets’ providing subtle responses objections raised.28 hope fair-minded reader grant this: fully convincing judged debate appears reached stand-off.29 Explaining why so, plaguing alternative well, task next section. Diagnosing requires systematize domain talk. responsive following considerations. unites otherwise simply discuss talking past other. ‘on track’, enduring influence inexplicable. Third, sufficiently heterogeneous inability suggestion—which, show, all considerations—is uses, linked ‘greatest denominator’ vary depending consists duties—such demand enforce violation. Crucially, implicates distinct ways. focusing empowerment: reasons (typically, interests) empower individuals. justificatory perspective, ‘A X' shorthand ‘A's empowerment—either herself agents—relative others’ X'.30 morally present circumstance: empowered enjoy. X'. Justification statement. Women's integrity women's husbands batter husbands' violations, (possibly) duties.31 Status Women duties.32 equally interpretations. Which appropriate depend speaker context hand. instance, advocates understood statements, granted class individuals: LGBT groups, differently able, ethnic minorities, forth. Others instead point existing reminding interlocutors already enjoy them. interpretations satisfied allows meaningfully gives unique phenomenon. however, so. somewhat trivially, co-occur. waiver powers inappropriate (for tortured) request too trivial). empowerment. importantly, made perspective. These ‘locus justification’ (empowerment)’ diverge. divergence, sometimes locates whose times status. captured justification-rights status-rights latter, reverse case. reveal beneath distinct—though related—phenomena: itself. see ‘children education’. easily interpreted justification-right statement, meaning children's education adults' bear provide children fulfill lacks interpretation themselves hard sustain. Children, seen, Their power, lies elsewhere—with parents, guardians, state. therefore, education. another return cousin’. take theft, on. try read encounter difficulties. true controlling (or be) Justification-rights existence identifies right-holder, considerations, whole power-conferring practices: system.33 sum up, underpinned reference invokes ways, distinction status- interpretations, giving impression phenomenon illusory. believe, clarifying respects. Apart assertions common, (1) helps diagnose failures theories, (2) makes influence, (3) impossible elaborate points. behind largely articulates lasting popularity: responds dimension At time, deficient respects, empowerment-based taxonomy why. first. Its focus duties—as responsible over-generation rights: declaring exist even beneficence. Moreover, insofar justifications systematically ugly ornament). Turning placed runs co-instantiated (as, rights). By assuming co-occur, referring interest-based anticipated, analysis attempt define article. recalling justification- locate category, places. open question form contrast, coincide (think rights), coupled co-instantiated, develop singles position.34 definition, family thereof, disjunctive, four relations.35 argued extensionally adequate enable There captures, thereof. specific, disambiguation. follows this? possibilities arguments each. defend regardless instincts, prompt direction taken contemporary first thought simple: job, vocabulary. using phenomenon, refer mind: empowerment-justifying themselves. words, questions ‘Does against B?’, directly rely disambiguations: Does B's duty? Do A's Incidentally, solution parallels conclusion imaginary which, knives, spife. There, employing separate knives seemed forward. Why things rights? reaction confusion avoided explicit relying problem, might argued, users unclear agree proceeding mitigate confusion, obvious offers advantages option avoiding Holding still likely mislead readers. Rights charged despite definitions, readers project own understanding whatever discussed. suggested strategy—to right—seems motivated continued attachment word (‘claim right’) decoupled was supposed motivate place: designates