SEPl

ogo

St
anf
ordEncy
clopedi
aofPhi
l
osophy

Menu

Sear
chSEP

Ent
ryNav
igat
ion

Ri
ght
s

Fi
rstpubl
i
shedMonDec19,
2005;
subst
ant
iver
evi
sionMonFeb24,
2020

Right
sareent
it
lements(not)toperf
orm cert
ainacti
ons,or(not)t
obeincert
ainst
ates;
or
enti
tl
ementst
hatother
s( not)per
for
m certai
nactionsor(not)beincer
tai
nstat
es.

Rightsdominatemodernunderstandi
ngsofwhatactionsar
epermissi
bleandwhi chi
nsti
tut
ions
arejust
.Rightsst
ruct
uretheform ofgover
nments,t
hecontentofl
aws,andt heshapeof
mor al
it
yasmanynowseei t
.Toacceptasetofrightsistoappr
oveadistr
ibuti
onoffreedom
andaut hor
it
y,andsotoendorseacer t
ainvi
ewofwhatmay ,must,
andmustnotbedone.

Thisent r
ybegi nsbydescr i
bingt henatureofrights:t
heirclassifi
cati
on, t
heircomposi tion,and
thei
rfunct i
on.Itthenreviewst hehistoryofthelanguageofr ights,andv ari
ousr el
ati
onships
betweenr ightsandr easons.Themaj orcontempor ar
yphi l
osophical approachest othe
j
ustif
icationofr i
ghtsarecompar ed,andtheent ryconcludesbysur v
ey i
ngcr i
ticismsofr i
ghts
and“rightstalk.”Thefocust hroughoutisongener al
theoreti
cal i
ssues( whatr ightsare)andnot
onargument sov erspecif
icrights(whatrightsthereare).Thosel ookingforf ull
erint
roductions
tori
ght smayconsi derJones( 1994),Harel(2005),Campbel l(2006),Ivi
son( 2007)and
Edmundson( 2012) .

1.Cat
egor
iesofRi
ght
s

2.TheAnal
ysi
sofRi
ght
s

2.
1TheFor
m ofRi
ght
s:TheHohf
eldi
anAnal
yti
cal
Syst
em

2.
2TheFunct
ionofRi
ght
s:TheWi
l
lTheor
yandt
heI
nter
estTheor
y

3.TheHi
stor
yoft
heLanguageofRi
ght
s

4.Ri
ght
sandFr
eedom
5.Ri
ght
sandReasons

5.
1Ri
ght
sasTr
umps

5.
2Conf
li
ctsofRi
ght
s?

5.
3Suppor
tamongRi
ght
s

5.
4Ri
ght
stoDoWr
ong

5.
5Ri
ght
stoBel
i
eve,
Feel
,andWant

6.Thr
eeAppr
oachest
otheJust
if
icat
ionofRi
ght
s

6.
1St
atus-
BasedRi
ght
s

6.
2Inst
rument
alRi
ght
s

6.
3Cont
ract
ual
andJust
if
icat
oryRi
ght
s

7.Cr
it
iquesofRi
ght
s

7.
1Cr
it
iquesofRi
ght
sDoct
ri
ne

7.
2Cr
it
iquesoft
heLanguageofRi
ght
s

Bi
bli
ogr
aphy

Academi
cTool
s

Ot
herI
nter
netResour
ces

Rel
atedEnt
ri
es

1.Cat
egor
iesofRi
ght
s

Ar i
ghttoli
fe,ari
ghttochoose;ar i
ghttov ot
e,towork,tostr
ike;ar i
ghttoonephonecall,
to
dissol
veparli
ament,t
ooper at
eaf orkli
ft
,toasylum,toequaltreatmentbeforethelaw,t
ofeel
proudofwhatonehasdone; arighttoexist,
tosentenceanof fendertodeath,
tolauncha
nuclearf
ir
ststri
ke,t
ocastlekingside,t
oadi sti
nctgeneti
cidentit
y;arightt
obeliev
eone’seyes,
topronouncethecouplehusbandandwi fe,t
obel ef
talone,t
ogot ohelli
none’sownway .

Weencounterasser
ti
onsofr i
ghtsasweencountersounds:per
sist
entlyandingr
eatv
ari
ety.To
makesenseofthisprofusi
onofasser
ti
onswecancl assri
ghtstogetherbycommonattr
ibutes.
Ri
ght
scanbecat egorized,
forexampl
e,accor
dingto:

Whoisal
legedtohav
ether
ight
:Chi
l
dren’
sri
ght
s,ani
mal
right
s,wor
ker
s’r
ight
s,st
ates’
right
s,
t
heri
ghtsofpeopl
es.
Whatact
ionsorstat
esorobj
ect
stheasser
tedri
ghtpert
ainsto:Ri
ghtsoffr
eeexpr
essi
on,
to
passj
udgment;r
ight
sofpri
vacy
,tor
emainsil
ent
;proper
tyright
s,bodi
lyr
ight
s.

Whyther
ight
holder(
all
egedl
y)hastheri
ght
:Moral
rightsaregroundedinmoralr
easons,
legal
r
ight
sder
ivefr
om thelawsofthesoci
ety
,cust
omaryright
sexistbylocalconv
ent
ion.

Howtheasser
tedrightcanbeaffect
edbytheri
ghtholder
’sact
ions:
Theinal
ienabl
eri
ghtt
oli
fe,
t
heforf
eit
abl
erighttoli
bert
y,andthewai
vabl
erightthatapromisebekept.

Manyofthesecategor
ieshav
esub-cat
egori
es.Fori
nstance,
natur
alr
ight
sar
ethesub-cl
assof
moral
right
sthathumanshavebecauseofthei
rnatur
e.Oragain,t
her
ight
sofpol
it
ical
speech
ar
easubclassoftheri
ghtsoffr
eeexpressi
on.

Thest udyofpar ti
cularright
si spri
maril
yani nvest i
gationintohowsuchcat egori
esandsub-
categor i
esov erl
ap.Ther ehasbeenmuchdi scussi on,forexampl e, ofwhetherhumanr ightsare
natur al r
ights, whet hertherighttopri
vacyisal egal ri
ght,andwhet hert helegalri
ghttolifeisa
for
fei tableright .(Forthecent ralj
uri
sprudenti
al debateov ert herelati
onbet weenl egalandmor al
ri
ght s, seelegal positi
vi
sm, nat ur
all
awt heori
es, andt henat ureoflaw. )Somet imestheorists
wil
l alsodoanal y t
icalwor konasi ngl
esubcat egor y:f
orexampl e,Steiner(2013)questions
whet heri nalienabl eorunwai vableri
ghtsarelogi call
ypossi ble,andAnder sson( 2013)discusses
whomor alr
ight holdersar e.

2.TheAnal
ysi
sofRi
ght
s

Categori
zat
ionsor
tsthepr
ofusi
onofright
sasser
ti
ons.Tounder
standt
heexactmeani
ngofany
assert
ionofari
ght,
weneedt ounder
standmorepreci
sel
yhowright
sareconst
ruct
edandwhat
theydo.

Ananal
ysisofri
ghtshast woparts:adescr i
pti
onoft heinter
nalstr
uctur
eofr i
ghts(t
heirfor
m),
andadescri
pti
onofwhatr ightsdof orthosewhohol dthem (thei
rfunct
ion)
.TheHohf el
dian
syst
em f
ordescri
bingthef or
m ofrightsiswidelyaccepted,al
thoughtherearescholar
ly
quar
rel
saboutit
sdet ai
ls.Whichtheorygivesthebestaccountoft hefuncti
onofrightshasbeen
muchmor econt
entious;weturntot hatdebateinsecti
on3.
2.
1TheFor
m ofRi
ght
s:TheHohf
eldi
anAnal
yti
cal
Syst
em

Analysisrev eal
st hatmostf amili
arrights,suchast herightt of r
eeexpr essi onort her i
ghtof
pri
vatepr oper t
y,hav eacompl exinternalstructure.Suchr i
ght sareor deredar r
angement sof
basiccomponent s, muchi nt hesamewayt hatmostmol eculesareor der edar rangement sof
chemi calelement s.Thef ourbasi ccomponent sofr i
ghtsar eknownas“ theHohf eldian
i
ncident s”afterWesl eyHohf el
d(1879–1918) ,theAmer icanl egaltheoristwhodi scov er
edthem.
Thesef ourbasi c“ el
ement s”ar ethepr i
vil
ege, t
hecl aim, thepower , andt hei mmuni ty.Eachof
theseHohf eldi
ani nci
dentshasadi stincti
vel ogicalform, andt heincident sf itt
oget herin
characteristi
cway stocreat ecompl ex“ molecular”rights.Onceoneknowst heHohf eldi
an
system, onecananal yzepr ecisel
ywhatanyasser t
ionofar ightmi ghtmean.

2.
1.1Pr
ivi
l
eges(
orLi
ber
ti
es)

Youhav
ear
ightt
opi
ckupashel
lthaty
ouf
indont
hebeach.Thi
sri
ghti
sapr
ivi
l
ege:

Ahasapr
ivi
l
eget
oφi
fandonl
yifAhasnodut
ynott
oφ.

Tosayt haty ouhav ear i

ghttopickupt heshell i
st osaythaty ouhav enodutynottopickitup.
Youwi llnotbev i
olatinganydutynott opickupt heshellshoul dyoudecidetodoso.Si mil
arl
y
yourrighttositinanempt yseatinthecinema, andy ourrightt opaintyourbedroom red,
are
alsoprivil
eges.Privi
lege-
right
smar koutwhatt heirbear
erhasnodut ynott
odo.WhenUS
Presidentsinvoke“execut i
veprivi
l
ege,”theydenyanasser tiont hattheyhaveadut ynott
o
withholdev i
dence:theyassertaHohf el
dianpri
v i
lege.Si
mi larly,ali
cense(todriv
e,toperf
orm
surgery,tokil
l)endowsi tsholderwithapr i
vi
leget oengagei nt hel
icensedacti
vit
y.Someone
withal i
censet odrivehasnodut ynott ooperate( speci
fi
edki ndsof )motorvehi
cles(i
n
parti
cularway s).

(Somewr i
ter
sonr ight
shaveprefer
redtospeakof“l
i
berti
es”insteadof“pri
vi
leges”(
e.g.,
Stei
ner
1994,59–60).Othershav
egiventhesetwotermsdi
ffer
entdef i
nit
ions(
e.g.,
Thomson1990,
53–55).Toav oi
dconfusi
on,thi
sentrywil
lal
waysuse“pri
vil
ege”andnev er“l
iber
ty”t
or ef
erto
thei
ncidentdefi
nedabove.)

2.
1.2Cl
aims

Acont
ractbet
weenempl
oyerandempl
oyeeconf
ersont
heempl
oyeear
ightt
obepai
dher
wages.Thi
sri
ghti
sacl
aim:

Ahasacl
aimt
hatBφi
fandonl
yifBhasadut
ytoAt
oφ.

Theemployeehasacl ai
mt hattheempl oy
erpaysherherwages,whi chmeanst hatthe
employ
erhasadut ytotheempl oyeetopaythosewages.Asseeni nt hedefi
nit
ionandt he
exampl
e,everycl
aim-ri
ghtcorrel
atestoadutyin(atl
east)oneduty-bearer
.Whati sdisti
ncti
ve
aboutt
heclai
m- r
ighti
sthatadut y-
bearer’
sdutyi
s“di
rectedat”or“owedt o”theri
ght-holder.
Whatexpl
ainsthe“dir
ecti
on”ofdirect
eddut i
eshasbeent hesubj
ectofcont r
oversy,discussed
i
nsecti
on2.2.3.

Somecl ai
m- ri
ght sexistindependentl
yofv oluntaryactionsl ikesi
gningacont r
act;andsome
clai
m- r
ightscor respondt odut i
esinmor et hanoneagent .Forexample, achil
d’sclaim-ri
ght
againstabuseexi stsindependentlyofany one’sact i
ons, andt hechil
d’sclai
m- r
ightcor r
elat
esto
adut yinever yotherper sonnott oabusehi m( inlegalterms, t
heclai
mr i
ghtisinrem) .This
exampl eoft hechi l
d’srightalsoil
lust
rateshowsomecl aim- r
ight
scanr equireduty-bearersto
refr
ainfrom per formingsomeact ion(i
.e.,
t hat“phi”canbeanegat i
vev erbsuchas“ notabuse
him”).Bodilyrightsandpr opert
yright
sar epar adi
gmat icr ightswit
hclaim- r
ightsattheircore.

2.
1.3Power
s

Pri
vil
egesandcl ai
msdef i
newhatHar tcall
ed“primaryrules”:r
ulesr
equir
ingthatpeopl eperf
orm
orref
rai
nf rom per
formingparti
cularacti
ons( Hart1961).Indeedthepri
mar yrulesforall
physi
calact i
onsareproper
lyanalyzedaspr ivi
l
egesandcl ai
ms.Wer ewet oknowal lpri
vil
eges
andclai
msconcer ningphysicalacti
ons,wewoul dknowf oreverypossi
blephy sical
acti
on
whetherthatacti
onwasper mi t
ted,r
equired,orforbi
dden.

Twofur
therHohf
eldianinci
dent
sdefi
newhatHartcal
led“
secondar
yrul
es”
:rul
est
hatspeci
fy
howagentscani
ntroduceandchangepr
imaryr
ules.

TheHohf
eldi
anpoweri
sthei
nci
dentt
hatenabl
esagent
stoal
terpr
imar
yrul
es:

Ahasapoweri
fandonl
yifAhast
heabi
l
ityt
oal
terherownoranot
her
’sHohf
eldi
ani
nci
dent
s.
Ashi p’scaptainhast hepower -
righttoor derami dshipmant oscr ubthedeck.Thecapt ai
n’s
exerciseoft hispowerchangest hesailor’
snor mat ivesi t
uat
ion:itimposesanewdut yupont he
sail
orandsoannul soneoft hesailor
’sHohf el
di anpr ivi
leges(nott oscrubthedeck) .Si
mi l
ar l
y,a
promi sorexerci sesapower -
ri
ghttocr eateint hepr omi seeaclaimt hatthepromi sorwill
perf
or m acer tainact i
on.Thepr omisor ’
sexer ciseofherpower -
r i
ghttopr omisecreatesint he
promi seeacl aimt hatt hepromisordowhatshepr omi sedtodo.Oragai n,aneighborwai veshis
cl
aimt hatyounotent erhi
spropertybyi nv i
ti
ngy oui ntohishome, t
husendowi ngy ouwi t
ha
corr
espondi ngpr iv
ilege.Orderi
ng,promi sing,wai v i
ng,abandoni ng,consenting,sell
ing,
and
sentencingar eal lexampl esofactsbywhi char ightholderexercisesapowert ochangehi sown
Hohf eldi
aninci dentsort hoseofanot her.

Powerscanalternotonly“
fi
rst-
order
”pri
v i
legesandcl
aims,but“
higher-
order”inci
dent
saswell
(Sumner1987,31).Anadmiral
,forexample,hasthepower-
ri
ghttorel
ieveacapt ai
nofher
power-r
ightt
ocommandashi p.Power-r
ightstoalt
ert
heauthori
tyofothersare,aswewil
lsee,
defi
nit
iveofal
ldevelopedl
egalandpoli
ticalsyst
ems.

2.
1.4I
mmuni
ti
es

Thefourthandfi
nalHohf
eldi
ani
nci
denti
sthei
mmuni
ty.WhenAhastheabi
li
tyt
oalt
erB’s
Hohfeldi
aninci
dent
s,t
henAhasapower.WhenAl
ackstheabi
l
ityt
oalt
erB’
sHohfel
dian
i
ncidents,t
henBhasanimmunit
y:

Bhasani
mmuni
tyi
fandonl
yifAl
ackst
heabi
l
ityt
oal
terB’
sHohf
eldi
ani
nci
dent
s.

TheUni tedStat
esCongr essl ackstheabili
tywit
hintheConsti
tut
iont oi
mposeuponAmer ican
ci
tizensadut ytokneel dailybeforeacr oss.Si
ncetheCongresslacksapower ,theciti
zenshav e
ani mmuni t
y.Thisimmuni tyisacor eelementofanAmer i
cancit
izen’sri
ghttoreli
giousf reedom.
Similarl
y,wit
nessesi ncour thavear i
ghtnott obeorder
edtoincri
mi nat
ethemsel ves,andci vi
l
servantshavear ightnottobedi smissedwhenanewgov ernmentcomest opower .Alloft hese
ri
ght sareimmuni ti
es,correspondingtoanabsenceofapoweri nsomeot herpart
yt oaltert he
ri
ght hol
der’
snormat ivesit
uat ioninsomeway .

2.
1.5Opposi
tesandCor
rel
ati
ves

Hohf
eldar r
angedt hefouri
ncidentsi
ntabl
esof“opposi
tes”and“corr
elat
ives”soastodispl
ay
t
helogicalstr
uctureofhissystem.Inor
dertof
il
loutthetablesheaddedsomef urt
her
t
erminology.Forinst
ance,i
faper sonAhasaclai
m, t
henAl acksa“no-cl
aim”(ano-cl
aimisthe
opposit
eofaclai
m) .Andi
fapersonAhasapower
,thensomeper
sonBhasa“
li
abi
l
ity
”(a
l
iabi
li
tyist
hecorr
elati
veofapower).

Opposi
tes

I
fAhas aCl
aim, t
henAl
acks aNo-
clai
m.

… aPr
ivi
l
ege, … aDut
y.

… aPower
, … aDi
sabi
l
ity
.

… anI
mmuni
ty,… aLi
abi
l
ity
.

Cor
rel
ati
ves

I
fAhas aCl
aim, t
hensomeper
sonBhas aDut
y.

… aPr
ivi
l
ege, … aNo-
clai
m.

… aPower
, … aLi
abi
l
ity
.

… anI
mmuni
ty,… aDi
sabi
l
ity
.

2.
1.6Mol
ecul
arRi
ght
s

Eachofthe“atomic”inci
dents—thepri
vi
lege,cl
aim,power,andi
mmuni t
y—canbearightwhenit
occursi
nisolat
ion.Andasment ionedabovetheseatomicinci
dentsalsobondtoget
herin
charact
eri
sti
cway stoform complexri
ghts.Foll
owing,f
orexample,i
spar toft
he“molecul
ar”
str
uctur
eofthepr opert
yrightt
hatyouhav eoveryourcomputer
:

Par
toft
he“
Mol
ecul
ar”St
ruct
ureofaPr
oper
tyRi
ght

Inthefigur
e,the“fi
rst-
order”r
ightsar
eyourl
egalri
ghtsdi
rect
lyoveryourpr
oper
ty—i
nthi
scase,
yourcomput er.Thepriv
il
egeont hisf
ir
stl
evelent
it
lesyoutouseyourcomputer
.Thecl
aim
correl
atestoadut yineveryotherper
sonnott
ousey ourcomputer.

The“ second-
order
”r i
ghtsareyourl
egalr
ightsconcerningthealt
erat
ionofthesefi
rst-
or der
ri
ghts.Youhav eseveralpowerswit
hrespecttoyourclaim—y oumaywai vethecl
aim( granti
ng
otherspermissi
ont otouchthecomputer)
,annultheclaim(abandoni
ngt hecomputerasy our
property)
,ortr
ansfertheclai
m( maki
ngthecomput erintosomeoneel se’
sproper
ty).Alsoont he
secondorder,youri
mmunitypr
eventsother
sf rom alt
eri
ngyourfirst
-or
derclaim overyour
computer.Yourimmuni
ty,t
hatis,
preventsothersfrom waiv
ing,annull
ing,ortr
ansferr
ingyour
cl
aim overyourcomput
er.Thefouri
ncidentstogetherconsti
tut
easi gnifi
cantport
ionofyour
proper
tyri
ght.

Ofcour seall
oft heseincidentsar equal
if
ied:youhavenoprivi
l
egetousey ourcomputerasa
weapon, ortousey ourcomput ertohackintosomeoneelse’smachine;andyouri
mmuni t
ymay
notentirel
yblockoutt hestate’spowerofexpr opr
iat
ion(
iff
orexampl ethecomputerbecomes
evidenceinacr i
mi nalcase).Thesequalif
icati
onstothei
ncidentscarv
et hecont
oursofyour
propertyri
ght,buttheydonotaf fecti
tsbasicshape.

Theremayal sobemor einci

dentsassociatedwi t
howner shi
pt hanshowni nt hefigureabov e.
Wellman( 1985,1995)describeseachrightashav i
nga“ defi
ningcor e”surroundedby
“associat
edelement s”whichmaybepr esentorabsentinapar ticul
arcase.Yourpr opertyri
ght,
forinst
ance,mayal sobepr otect
edbyaqual ifi
edthir
d-orderi
mmuni tyagainstt hegov ernment
alt
eringyoursecond-orderri
ghtsoveryourpr opert
y(forexampl e,underthe“ TakingsCl ause”of
theFift
hAmendmentt otheUSConst i
tutionthegovernmentcannotsi mplyannul y ourri
ghtt o
sellaparcelofyourland).

2.
1.7Act
iveandPassi
veRi
ght
s

Thedistincti
onbetweenactiv
eandpassiverights(Lyons1970)mapsneat lyontothe
Hohfeldianinci
dents.Thepri
vi
legeandthepowerar e“ acti
ve”right
st hatconcerntheirhol
ders’
ownact ions.Theclai
m andtheimmunityar
e“ passive”right
st hatregulat
et heacti
onsofot her
s.
Act
iver i
ghtsaresignaledbystat
ementsofthef or
m“ Ahasar i
ghttoφ” ;whilepassiveri
ght
sar e
si
gnaledbyst atementsoftheform“Ahasar ightthatBφ”( i
nbot hofthesef or
mul as,“
φ”isan
act
ivev erb).

Anav alcaptai
nhasan( activ
e)privi
lege-r
ightt
owalkthedecksandan( act
ive)power
-r
ightto
orderthattheshipsetsai
l.Apl ay
erinachesst our
namenthasa( passi
ve)clai
m-ri
ghtthathis
opponentnotdistracthi
m, andapr ofessorhasa(passi
ve)i
mmuni t
y-r
ightt
hatheruniversi
tynot
fi
reherforpublishi
ngunpopul arvi
ews.

2.
1.8Negat
iveandPosi
ti
veRi
ght
s

Adisti
ncti
onbetweennegat
iveandposi
ti
veright
sispopul
aramongsomenor mati
vet
heori
sts,
especi
all
ythosewit
habenttowardli
ber
tari
anism.Thehol
derofanegat
iver
ighti
sent
it
ledto
non-i
nter
fer
ence,whi
letheholderofapositi
veri
ghti
senti
tl
edtoprovi
sionofsomegoodor
serv
ice.Ari
ghtagai
nstassaulti
saclassicexampleofanegat
iver
ight
,whil
ear i
ghtt
owelf
are
assi
stancei
sapr ot
otypi
calposit
iver
ight(Narv
eson2001)
.

Si
ncebothnegat i
veandposi
tiv
erightsarepassiver
ights,somerightsar
eneithernegati
venor
posi
ti
ve.Privi
l
egesandpowerscannotbenegat iver
ights;andpri
vil
eges,powers,and
i
mmuni t
iescannotbeposit
iveri
ghts.The(pr
ivi
lege-
)righttoent
erabui l
ding,
andt he(power
-)
ri
ghtt
oent erint
oabindi
ngagreement ,
areneit
hernegat i
venorposit
ive.

Itissometimessai dthatnegati
veright
sareeasiertosatisfyt
hanpositi
veri
ghts.Negat
ive
rightscanber espect
edsi mplybyeachpersonrefrai
ningfrom i
nterf
eri
ngwitheachother,
while
i
tmaybedi ff
icultorevenimpossibl
et oful
fi
ll
everyone’sposit
iveri
ghtsi
fthesum ofpeople’
s
claimsoutstr
ipst heresourcesavai
l
able.

Howev er,wheni tcomest otheenf orcementofr ight s,t

hisdi f
fer
encedi sappears.Fundinga
l
egal sy stem thatenf orcesci ti
zens’ negat i
ver i
ght sagai nstassaultmayr equi
remor eresour
ces
thanfundi ngawel faresy stem thatreali
zesci t
izens’ positi
v eri
ghtstoassi st
ance.AsHol mes
andSunst ein(1999, 43)puti t,i
nt hecont extofci tizens’ri
ght stostateenf or
cement ,
allri
ght
s
areposi ti
v e.Mor eover ,
t hepointisof tenmadet hatt hemor alur
gencyofsecur ingpositiv
e
ri
ghtsmaybej ustasgr eatast hemor alurgencyofsecur ingnegativerights(Shue1996) .
What ev eristhej ust
ificat orybasisforascr ibingright s—aut onomy,need, orsomet hi
ng
else—t heremi ghtbej ustasst rongamor al casef orf ul
fi
ll
ingaper son’srighttoadequate
nutri
tionast hereisforpr otecti
ngt hatper son’sr i
ghtnott obeassaul t
ed.

2.
2TheFunct
ionofRi
ght
s:TheWi
l
lTheor
yandt
heI
nter
estTheor
y

2.
2.1Concept
ual
Anal
ysi
sver
susDef
ini
ti
onal
Sti
pul
ati
on

Allri
ght scanber epresentedbyHohf eldiandiagrams, li
ket hediagram oft heproper tyri
ght
“molecul e”abov e.(Halpin2017)Howev er,somedi agr amsofHohf eldianincidentst hatwecan
const ructdonotcor r
espondt oanyright .Totakeasi mpl eexampl ef rom Har t(1982, 191–92),
yourci tycouncillackst heHohf el
dianpowert oawar dy ouapensi on; sobydef init
iony ouhavea
Hohf eldianimmuni tyagai nstyourcit
ycounci lawar di
ngy ouapensi on.Yeti twoul dbeoddt o
saythaty ouhav ear i
ghtagai nstyourci tycouncilawar dingyouapensi on.Yout hushav ean
i
mmuni ty,butnotar i
ght .Notall(
coll
ect ionsof )Hohf eldianincidentsar er i
ghts;itisonlythose
(col
lect i
onsof )Hohf el
di aninci
dentsthathav eacer tainf uncti
on( orper hapscer tainfuncti
ons)
thatar erights.Totakeananal ogy:allengagementr i
ngsar eri
ngs, butonl yringswi thacer t
ain
functionar eengagementr i
ngs.What ,then, i
sthef unct ionofrights?
Thequesti
onofthefuncti
onofri
ghtsi
st hequesti
onofwhatr i
ght
sdof orthosewhohol dt
hem.
Befor
ediscussi
ngthetwomajorposit
ionsonthisissue,
wecansur veysomest atement
sthat
theor
ist
shavemadet hatmayappeartobedescribingwhichHohf
eldiani
ncidentsareri
ght
s:

Tohav
ear
ighti
stohav
ea“
val
i
dcl
aim.
”(Fei
nber
g1970,
257)

“
Int
hest
ri
ctestsense”al
lri
ght
sar
ecl
aims.(
Hohf
eld1919,
36)

“
Right
sar
ebui
l
tar
oundt
hecl
aimsofpat
ient
sonanagent
.”(
Wal
en2019,
58)

“
Ari
ght
,int
hemostimpor
tantsense,
ist
heconj
unct
ionofa[
pri
vi
lege]andacl
aim-
ri
ght
.”
(
Macki
e1979,
169)

“Ri
ghtsareper
missionsr
athert
hanr
equi
rement
s.Ri
ght
stel
luswhatt
hebear
eri
satl
i
ber
tyt
o
do.
”(Louden1983,95)

“
Nooneeverhasar i
ghtt
odosomethi
ng;
heonl
yhasar
ightt
hatsomeoneel
seshal
ldo(
or
r
efr
ainf
rom doi
ng)somethi
ng.
”(Wi
l
li
ams1968,
125)

“
Apersonwhosay
st oanother‘
Ihav
ear i
ghttodoit’
isnotsayi
ngthat…iti
snotwr
ongt
odoi
t.
Hei
sclai
mingt
hattheotherhasadutynott
ointer
fere.
”(Raz1994,275)

“
Ari
ghti
sanest
abl
i
shedwayofact
ing.
”(Mar
ti
n1993,
1)

“
Iti
shar
dtot
hinkofr
ight
sexceptascapabl
eofexer
cise.
”(Har
t1982,
185)

“
Ari
ghti
sapowerwhi
chacr
eat
ureoughtt
opossess.
”(Pl
amenat
z1938,
82)

“
All
right
sar
eessent
ial
l
ypr
oper
tyr
ight
s.”(
Stei
ner1994,
93)

“
Right
sar
ethemsel
vespr
oper
ty,
thi
ngsweown.
”(Fei
nber
g1973,
75)

Atfirst,t
hissurveymi ghtr
emi ndonetheprover
boft hebl indmen,eachofwhom i sfeeli
nga
diff
erentpar tofanelephant.Howev er
,weshoulddistinguishbet
weent wodif
ferentaimst hata
theoristmighthavewhenshemakesast atementoft hef orm“Al
lrightsarex.
”At heoristmay
beat temptingtoanaly zet
hemeani ngofourordi
naryconceptofr ights,orshemaybe
sti
pul at
ingadef i
nit
ionof“rights”wi
thi
nherownet hical,poli
ti
cal
orl egalt
heory.

Consi
der
,forexampl
e,Mi
l
l’
sfamousasser
ti
oni
nUt
il
it
ari
ani
sm:

Whenwecallanyt
hingaper
son’sri
ght,
wemeanthathehasavali
dclai
m onsoci
etyt
opr ot
ect
hi
minthepossessi
onofit
,ei
therbythefor
ceofl
aw,orbyt
hatofeducat
ionandopi
nion…To
havear i
ght,
then,i
s,Iconceiv
e,t
ohav
esomet
hingwhi
chsoci
etyoughtt
odef
endmei
nthe
possessionof.(
Mil
l1861, 54)

Asananal y si
softheeverydayconceptofar ight
,Mill
’
sassertionwouldbeweak.Forexampl e,
forcenturi
esmanypeopl ehav eassertedthatGodhast heri
ghtt ocommandman; y
et
presumabl ynoonewhoasser tssuchar i
ghtwouldcommi ttot hei
deathatsocietyoughtto
defendGodi nthepossessionofthepowert ocommand.Tot akeanotherexample,ther
eseems
nothingincoherenti
nthet houghtthati
ndivi
dualshavearightnottobepr ot
ectedbysociety;y
et
thist
houghtcoul dnotmakesenseonMi l
l’
scharacter
izat
ionofwhatr i
ghtsare.(OnMi l
l
,see
alsoHart1982, 100–04.)

Mill’
sst at
ementi sbet t
erseennotasananal y
sisoftheeverydayconcept ,
butasast ipul
at i
ve
definit
ionoft het erm“ r
ight.”Mil
l sti
pulat
esthispart
icul
ardefini
tionbecauset heideaof“ those
possessi verelationst hatar evaluableenought hati
tisworthwhileforsocietytoinst
itute
sanct i
onst opr otectt hem”i sani deathatworkswel lwi
thi
nhi slargerutil
it
ari
antheory.So
wher eMi l
l’
sst atementdepar tsfrom thecommonunder st
andingofr ights,weshouldchar it
abl
y
readMi l
laspr escr i
bing, i
nsteadofdescr ibi
ng,usage.Manyaut hors’pronouncement sabout
ri
ght sarechar itablyinterpretedast hesekindsofexerci
sesi nstipul
ation,rat
herthanas
attempt stoanal yzetheor dinaryconceptofr i
ghts.

Tot akeanexampl efrom theschol arl

ylit
erat ure,iti
snotuncommont oencounterageneral
statementt hatallr
ightsare( oratleastinclude)cl aim- r
ights(see,e.
g.,Raz1986,166,173–75;
Steiner,
1994, 55;Kramer ,SteinerandSi mmonds1999, 9–14).These“allr
ightsar
eclaims”
statementsar ebetterinterpretedasstipulative,ratherthanasanal y
sesofcommonusage.“ All
ri
ght sareclaims”positionscannotr ecogni ze, f
orexampl e,theri
ghtsintheHobbesianstateof
nature,i
nwhi cheachper sonhasunl imitedpr ivil
ege-rightsofself-
defensey etnocl
aim-ri
ghts
againstattack.Neithercoul dan“ al
lri
ghtsar ecl aims”t heoryrecognizethattheUSConst i
tut
ion
gi
v esCongr essthesol e(power -
)ri
ghttodecl arewar .Thest atementthatri
ghtsareclai
msi s
prescri
ptiv
ef or,notdescr i
ptiveof,usage.

Occasionallyatheoristwi l
lsayt hatsheispr esent ingnei t
herananal y sisoftheordinaryconcept
ofar i
ght,normer el
yst ipulati
nganewmeani ngf orthet erm“ r
ight,
”buti srat
herofferi
ngsome
thi
rdtypeofchar acterizati
on.Fori nst
ance, Wel l
man( 1995, 136)say st hathisnarrow
specif
icati
onof“ ari
ght ”i
sneededt oprovide“ acl earerandmor erev ealingmapoft hel aw.”Raz
(1986,166)f r
amesacont rasti
ng“ phi
losophical def i
nit
ion”that,hesay s,“i
ll
uminatesat radi
tion
ofpoli
ticalandmor al discoursei nwhichdifferentt heoriesofferincompat i
bleviewsofwhat
ri
ghtstherear eandwhy .
”Whet herthereisroom f orsuchat hi
rdcat egor yof“phil
osophi cal
defi
nit
ion,”whichgoesbey ondbot hordinaryanal ysisandst ipulati
on, iscontested(Wenar2008) .
2.
2.2TheWi
l
lTheor
yandt
heI
nter
estTheor
y

Ther
ear et
womai ntheoriesofthef uncti
onofright
s:thewil
ltheoryandtheinter
estt
heory.
Eachtheor
ypresent
sitselfascapt uri
nganor di
naryunder
standingofwhatrightsdofort
hose
whoholdthem.Whicht heoryoffersthebett
eraccountofthefunctionsofr
ightshasbeenthe
subj
ectofspi
ri
teddispute,l
iter
allyforages.

Wi l
ltheor i
stsmai ntai
nt hatar i
ghtmakest her i
ght holder“
asmal l
scal esov ereign”(Hart1982,
183).Mor especif i
cal
ly,awi l
ltheori
stasser tsthatt hefunctionofar ightist ogiveitsholder
control overanot her’
sdut y.Yourpropertyrightdiagr ammedi nt hefi
gur eabov eisar i
ght,says
thewi l
l theori
st,becausei tcontainsapowert owai ve(orannul ,ortransf er)others’duti
es.You
arethe“ soverei
gn”ofy ourcomput er
,inthaty oumayper mi totherstot ouchi tornotaty our
discretion.Simil
ar l
yapr omi seeis“sovereign”ov ert heacti
onoft hepr omi sor:apr omiseehasa
ri
ghtbecauseshehast hepowert owai ve(orannul )thepromi sor’
sdut ytokeept hepromise.In
Hohf eldianterms, wil
ltheor i
stsassertthatev eryrightincl
udesaHohf eldianpowerov eraclai
m.
Incolloqui alt
erms, wil
ltheor i
stsbeli
evet hatallrightsconf ercont r
ol overot hers’duti
estoactin
parti
cul arway s.

Interesttheor
istsdisagree.I
nteresttheori
stsmaintai
nthatthef uncti
onofar i
ghtistof urt
her
ther i
ght-hol
der’
sinterests.Anownerhasar i
ght
,accordi
ngtot heinteresttheori
st,notbecause
owner shav echoices,butbecauset heowner shi
pmakesowner sbet teroff.Apromiseehasa
rightbecausepr omiseeshav esomei nter
estint
heperformanceoft hepr omise,or(alt
ernati
vel
y)
somei nt
erestinbeingabl etoformv oluntar
ybondswi t
hothers.Yourr ights,t
heinterest
theor i
stsays,aretheHohf el
dianincidentsyouhavethataregoodf oryou.

Thecontestbetweenwi ll
-basedandi nterest
-basedtheoriesofthefunct
ionofrightshasbeen
wagedforhundr edsofyear s.Inf
luent
ialwill
theori
stsincl
udeKant ,
Sav i
gny,Hart,
Kelsen,
Well
man, andSteiner.I
mpor t
antinter
esttheori
stsincludeBentham, I
heri
ng,Austi
n,Lyons,
MacCormi ck,
Raz, andKramer .Eacht heoryhasstrongerandweakerpoi nt
sasanaccountof
whatri
ghtsdof orright
holders.

Thewillt
heorycapturest
hepowerfull
inkbetweenright
sandnormat i
vecontr
ol.Tohav earight
i
st ohavetheabil
it
ytodeterminewhatothersmayandmaynotdo, andsotoexer ci
seauthori
ty
overacertai
ndomai nofaff
air
s.Theresonantconnecti
onbetweenright
sandaut hori
ty(t
he
author
it
ytocontrolwhatother
smaydo)i sforwil
ltheori
stsamatterofdef
ini
ti
on.
Howev er, t
hewi l
l t
heor y’
saccountoft hef unctionofr i
ght sstruggl estoexplai
nmanyr i
ghtsthat
mostt hinkt herear e.Wi thi
nt hewi l
ltheory,therecanbenosucht hingasanunwai vableright
:a
ri
ghtov erwhi chitshol derhasnopower .Yetint uitiv
elyi twouldappeart hatunwaivabler i
ghts
aresomeoft hemosti mpor tantri
ghtst hatwehav e:consi der,forexampl e,t
heunwai vabl
er i
ght
nottobeensl aved( MacCor mi ck1977, 197).Mor eover,sincet hewi llt
heori
stholdst hatall
ri
ghtsconf ersov ereignty,shecannotacknowl edget hatbei ngsincapabl eofexercisi
ng
sovereigntyhav erights.Wi t
hi nthewi l
ltheory,itisi mpossi blefori ncompetentsl
ikei nfants,
animals, andcomat oseadul tstohav erights.Yetweor dinari
lywoul dnotdoubtthatt hese
i
ncompet ent scanhav er i
ghts, f
orexampl ether ightnott obet ortured(MacCormi ck1982,
154–66) .Wi lltheoriesalsohav ediff
iculti
esexpl ai ni
ngbar eprivil
ege-ri
ghts(suchasi nthe
Hobbesi anst ateofnat ure),whicharenotr i
ghtsofaut hor i
tyoverot hers.

Thei nterestt
heoryismor ecapacioust
hanthewill
theor y
.Itcanaccommodat ebothunwai
vabl
e
ri
ghts( thepossessi
onofwhi chmaybegoodf ort
hei rhol
ders)andtheri
ghtsofincompet
ent
s
(whohav eint
erest
st hatri
ghtscanprot
ect)
.Theinteresttheoryal
sotapsint
othedeeply
plausibleconnecti
onbet weenholdingr
ight
sandbei ngbetteroff
.

Howev er,theinteresttheor yisalsomi sali

gnedwi thanyor di
naryunder standingofr ights.We
commonl yacceptt hatpeopl ecanhav einterest
si nxwithouthav ingar i
ghttox; and
contrariwisethatpeopl ecanhav ear i
ghttoxwi t
houthav i
nginterest ssuff
icientt oexpl ai
nthis.
Inthef ir
stcat egoryar e“thirdpartybenef i
ciari
es”(Lyons1994, 36–46) .Youmayhav ea
power fulinterestinthel ott
er ypayingoutf oryourspouse’swi nningt i
cket,buty ouhav enoright
thatthel otter
ypay soutt oy ourspouse.Int hesecondcat egoryar emanyoft heright sofoff
ice-
holdersandr ole-bearers(Jones1994, 31–32; Wenar2013b) .What everint
erestaj udgemay
havei nsent encingaconv icttolifeinpri
son, thejudge’
sinterestscannotj ustifyascr ibi
ngtoher
thepowert omakesuchadr amat i
cchangei ntheconv i
ct’
snor mat iv
esituation.

Thediffi
cul
tiesoftheint
eresttheoryhaveoftenbeennotedinRaz’sversi
on,whichi
sperhaps
themostpr ominent.I
nRaz ’
saccount ,
“Xhasar ighti
fXcanhav eri
ghts,and,
othert
hingsbei
ng
equal,anaspectofX’swell-
being(hisint
erest)i
sasuffi
cientr
easonforholdi
ngsomeot her
person(s)t
obeunderadut y”(
Raz1986, 166).

Yetthereappeartobemanyr i
ghtsforwhicht hei nt
erestsoftheput at
iveright
-holderarenot
suffi
cienttoholdotherperson(s)tobeunderadut y
.Forexampl e,Razhi mselfnoticesthatthe
i
nterestofaj our
nali
stinprotecti
nghissour cesi snotitsel
fsuffi
cientreasontohol dothersto
beunderadut ynottopressurethejournali
stt orevealhissources(Raz1986, 179,247–8).Raz
saysthati ti
srat
hertheinterestsofthegener alpubli
ci nanactiveandi ndependentmedi athat
groundst hejour
nali
st’
srighttoprotecthissour ces.YetasKamm t henobj ect
st oRaz,“Ift
he
sati
sfact
ionoftheint
erestsofother
sisthereasonwhythejour
nalistgetsarighttohavehi
s
i
nterestprot
ected,
hisint
eresti
snotsuffi
cientt
ogiveri
setothedut yofnoninter
ferencewi
th
hisspeech”(Kamm 2002,485;foradefenseofRaz,seePal
li
kkathayil2016)
.

Nordoest hisdiffi
cul
tyonlyaff
ecttherightsofof f
ice-holdersli
kejournal
ists;Razadmi t
sthat
weightyri
ghtssuchast heri
ghtsoffreeexpr essi
onandf reedom ofcontractarenotjusti
fi
ed
solel
ybythei nterest
softheindivi
dualcit
izenswhohol dt hem,butalsobyt heway sthatthese
ri
ghtsfurt
hert hecommongood( Raz1995, 30–43, 131).Oragain,parentsmayhav et heri
ghtto
recei
vechildbenef i
tpaymentsfrom thestate,buther eonlytheinterest
soft hechil
dren,andnot
theint
erestsoft heparents,
couldbesuf f
ici
entt oholdt hestatetobeunderadut y.

Raz’sversi
onoft heinter
esttheorycontinuest obethemostwidely-
cit
edaccountofthe
functi
onofrights,despit
esuchconcer nst hatarenowcommonpl aceinthespeci
ali
stli
ter
ature.
Kramer’sversi
onoft heinter
esttheory
, whi chspeci
fi
esnecessar
yconditi
onsforhol
dingal egal
ri
ght,i
sthemaj orcontempor ar
yalter
nat i
ve( Kramer2013,
2017).

Willt
heoristsandi nteresttheorist
shav edev elopedtheirposit
ionswi thincreasingtechni cal
sophist
icati
on.Thei ssuest hatdivi
det hetwocampsar eclearlydefined,andt hedebat es
betweent hem areof tenintense.(Kr amer,
Simmonds, andSt ei
ner1998, VanDuf fel2012a,
Kramer2013, McBr i
de2017, Frydrych2018)Theseemi nglyint
ermi nabledebat ebetweent hese
twomaj ortheor i
eshasdr i
vensomet oconcludet hatt
hedebat eitselfrestsont hemi staken
premisethatt hereisasi ngleconceptofar i
ghtf orwhichtheset heoriesprovideriv
al anal yses
(VanDuf f
el 2012b, Hay ward2013) .Thedeadl ockhasencour agedot hert heori
ststodev elop
alt
ernat
iveposi ti
onsont hef uncti
onofr i
ghts.

“Demand”t heoriesfilloutt hei deathat ,asFei nberg( 1973,58–59)put sit,“

Ar ightissomet hing
amancanst andon, somet hingt hatcanbedemandedori nsisteduponwi t
houtembar rassment
orshame. ”ForDar wal l(2006, 18) ,
tohav eacl aim-ri
ght ,“
includesasecond- personal aut hori
tyto
resist,complain,remonst rate,andper hapsusecoer civemeasur esofotherki nds,including,
perhaps, t
ogai ncompensat i
oni fther ightisv iol
ated.”OnSkor upski’
saccount( 2010, XII.6,
XIV.2–3)r i
ght sspeci fywhatt her i
ght-hol dermaydemandofot hers,where“demand”i mpl i
es
theper missibil
it
yofcompel l
ingper formanceorexact i
ngcompensat ionfornon- per f
or mance.
Liket hewil
l theory,thesedemandt heor iescent eront heagencyoft heright-holder.Theydonot
turnont her i
ght-holder ’
spowerov erthedut yofanot her,
sot heydonotshar ethewi lltheory’s
diff
icultywithunwai v ableright s.Theymay ,howev er,havemor ediffi
cult
iesinexpl ainingpower -
ri
ght s.Demandt heor i
esal soshar ethewi ll
-t
heor y’
schal l
engesi nexplai
ningt herightsof
i
ncompet ents,andi nexpl ainingpr ivi
lege- ri
ghts.
Gilber
t( 2018)dev elopsnotademandt heoryofr i
ghts,butatheoryofaspeci alcl
assofri
ght s
thatshecal ls“demand- ri
ght
s.”Inherformulation,“Xhasademand- r
ightagainstYifandonl yi
f
Xhast hest andingtodemandofYt hatYφ. ”(2018, 70)Gil
bert’
sparadigm ofademand- r
ightis
apr omi ssoryright
:thepromiseehast hestandi ngtodemandper f
ormancef r
om thepromi sor,
meani ngt hatthepr omiseehastheaut hor
it
ytodemandt hatthepromisordowhatshe
promisedt odo.Gi l
bertexpl
ainsthi
sstandingt odemandi ntermsofhertheor yofj
oint
commi tment( 2013).

Otheranal ysesofwhatr i
ghtsdof orr ightholdersarev aried.Scanl on(2003, 2013)def endst he
positionthatright
sareconst rai
ntsont hediscr eti
onofi ndividualsorinsti
tutionst oact .
Sreeni v
asan( 2005,2010)put sfor
war da“ hybrid”anal
y sisoft hecl ai
m-ri
ghtt hatgraftst he
i
nterestt heoryontothewilltheory:her ethef uncti
onoft hecl aim- r
ighti
st oendowt her ight-
holderwi ththeamountofcont r
ol overanot her’sdutythatadv ancesheri nterests.Wenar( 2005)
abandonst heideathatallr
ightshav eanysi ngl efuncti
on, andset souta“ severalfunct i
ons”
theoryonwhi chri
ghtsperform sixdist i
nctfunct i
ons.Wenar( 2013b)thenset souta“ ki nd
desire”theoryofclaim-r
ights,whicht urnsonwhatr ol
e-bear erslikejour
nalistsandpar entswant
assuch, andmor egenerall
yonwhatbei ngs( li
kehumans)wantquat hekindsofbei ngst hat
theyar e.

Scanlon’
sanal ysi
siscr
it
ici
zedinGilbert(2004),
Wenar(2013a);Sr
eeni
vasan’sandWenar ’
s
analy
sesar ecr i
ti
quedi
nKramerandSt einer(
2007),May(2012)
.Kramer’s,
Sr eeni
vasan’
sand
Wenar ’
stheoriesarecr
it
ici
zedanddev elopedinessaysbyKramer,May,Penner ,Sr
eeniv
asan,
McBride,andCr ufti
nMcBride(2017);Kramer’stheor
yismodifi
edinKurki(2018);Wenar’
s
theor
yisdef endedinSchaab(2018).

2.
2.3TheDi
rect
ionofaDut
y

Recently,
theori
stshav
eat t
empt edt omakeprogressont hequest i
onoft hefunctionofright
sby
scruti
nizi
ngtheclai
m-ri
ghtinpar t
icular
,andbyshift
ingatt enti
onont othedut ythatcorr
esponds
toit.Asabove,onthestandardaccountwhati sdist
incti
veaboutt heclai
m- r
ightisthataduty-
bearer’
sdutyis“dir
ect
edat ”or“owedt o”ther
ight
-holder.( Thepromisor,forexampl e,
owesa
dutyofperformancetothepr omisee.)Yetwhatcouldaccountf orthedir
ectionali
tyofsuch
“di
rectedduti
es”?(May2015)

Aft
erall
,notall
duti
esaredir
ectedtospeci
fi
cothers.Forexample,t
hemoraldut
yofaf
fluent
peoplet
ogivesomeoft hei
rwealthtochar
it
yisnotowedt oanyspecif
icper
son.And“
directed
duti
es”appeartohavespeci
alnormati
vesi
gnif
icance.Theviol
ati
onofanydutymaybewr ong
(i
tmaybewr ongf orarichper sontogi venothingtocharity).Butt hevi
olati
onofadi r
ect
edduty
i
smor et hanjustawr ong:itisawr ongingoft hebeingtowhom t hedutyisowed( Thompson
2004).Andunl i
keamer ewr ong,thewr ongingofsomebei ngcal ls,cet
eri
spar i
bus,f
orapology
andcompensat i
on.Cruft(2013)furtherarguest hattheviolationofanydut yowedt oabeingis
disr
espectfulofthatbeing.Thequest ioniswhatcoul dpossi blyaccountfortheextr
a
si
gnifi
canceoft hedut i
esthathav edirecti
on.( Cor
nell2015ar guesagainstthethesi
sthatone
canwr ongonlythoset owhom onehasdi rectedduti
es.)

Darwall(
2012)ar guesthathissecond- per sonal t
heoryofmor ali
tybestexplainstherelati
on
betweendut y-
bearerandr i
ght-holder.(YetseeVanki eken2019. )Cruft(2019)agreesthatthe
dir
ecteddut y
-beareri
srequiredbyt henat ureofherdut ytoconceiveoft heri
ght-
holdersecond-
personal
ly,as“you,onwhom Iact .”Cruftthendi sti
nguishesnaturalandhumanr ights,whichare
groundedlargelybythegoodoft her i
ght -
holder,from convent
ionalrights,
whicharegr ounded
byhowt heyser vepeopleorv aluesbesi dest heright
-holder
.Cruftarguesthatmostpr operty
ri
ghtsareconv enti
onal,
y etseem t obenat ur
al i
nsuchadanger ousl
yi deol
ogicalwaythatwe
shouldspeakoft hem asnotr ightsatal l
,butr at
hermer elyasinvolvi
ngcer t
aincontr
ollabl
e
duti
esofot hers.

3.TheHi
stor
yoft
heLanguageofRi
ght
s

Intell
ectualhistori
anshav edisputedt heor i
ginsofr i
ght s.Thesedebat esar esomet i
mesf ramed
i
nt ermsofwhen“ theconceptofar ight”emer ged.Yeti nsofarasi ti
sreal l
yt heemer genceof
theconceptofar ightthatisatissue, theanswerl iesbey ondt hecompet enceoft heintell
ectual
histori
anandwi t
hint hedomai noft heant hropologist.Event hemostpr i
mit i
vesocialordermust
i
ncl uder ul
esspeci fyingthatcertainindivi
dual sorgr oupshav especi
al permi ssi
ont operform
certainactions.Mor eover,ev
ent hemostr udiment aryhumancommuni tiesmusthav erules
specifyingthatsomear eentitl
edtot ellotherswhatt heymustdo.Suchr ulesascriberights.The
genesi softheconceptofar ightwassi multaneouswi threfl
ect i
veawar enessofsuchsoci al
nor ms,howev erourf orebear
sdeci dedt odescr i
bet hosenor ms.

Themor epr
oducti
vecharacter
izat
ionofthedebatewithi
nintel
lectual
hist
oryconcernswhena
word(orphr
ase)appearedthathasameani ngcl
oset othemeani ngofourmodernwor d.Thi
s
debat
eturnsonwheni nhist
orythepre-
moder n“
objecti
ve”senseof“ r
ight
”cameal sotobear
ourmodern,“
subj
ecti
ve”senseof“ ari
ght.
”

“Ri
ght”ini
tsol
der,obj
ecti
vesensemeans“whatisjust
”or“whati
sfair
”(Fi
nnis1980,206).
Ari
stotl
eusesdikai
on,f
orexample,t
oindi
catethatasoci
etyi
s“ri
ghtl
yorder
ed”:t
hatitdispl
ays
thecorr
ectst
ructur
eofhumanr el
ati
onshi
ps.“Ri
ght”i
nthi
sobject
ivesensecanalsobe
attr
ibutedt oindivi
duals.TheRomanj uri
stUlpi
an,fori
nstance,
heldt
hatjust
icemeansr enderi
ng
eachhi sright(ius)
.Inthissense,aperson’
s“ r
ight
”iswhatisduetohim gi
venhi
sr ol
eorst at
us.
Thisobj ecti
vesenseof“ r
ight
”isnotthesameasourmoder nideaof“ari
ght.
”Forinst
ance,
Ulpiannot edthattheiusofapar ri
cidewastobesewni nt
oasackofsnakesandt ossedintothe
Tiber(Tierney1997, 16).

Ther ehasbeenal onganddi visi

vescholarl
yinqui
ryintowhenourmoder n,subj
ecti
v esenseof
“aright”becameest abli
shedasameani ngofsomewor dorphr ase.Thehi st
oryisuncer t
ain
partlybecauset heancientauthorsoftenusedwor dsimpr ecisel
y,andsmear edtheirmeani ngs
acrossandbey ondt heHohfeldiancategori
es.Theintell
ectualhist
ori
anst hemselveshav e
occasionallycongest edthediscussi
onbyt akingdi
fferentfeatur
esofr i
ghtsasdef i
niti
v eofthe
moder nconcept .Mor eover,
thescholarlydebatehassomet i
mesaccept edov er
-opti
mi sti
c
assumpt ionsaboutt hesharpnessofconcept ualboundaries.

Nevertheless,twobr oadtrendsint heschol arl

ydiscussionshav eemer ged.Thef i
rsti
st opush
theorigi
nsofat ermi ndi
cati
ngamoder n,subjecti
vesenseof“ aright”backfur t
herintohi st
ory:
from Locket oHobbest oGroti
usi nt heseventeenthcent ur
y,thent oGersoni nthef i
fteenth
century,t
hent oOckham i nthef ourteenth,perhapsev entoGr ati
ani nthetwelfth(Brett1997,
Tier
ney1997, Siedentop2014, LisskaandTi er
ney2015) .Donohue( 2010)ev enar guest hatius
i
susedi nasubj ecti
vesenset hroughoutt hewor ksoft heclassicalRomanj uristsinthef i
rst
centuryBCEt ot hethirdcenturyCE.

Thesecondandr elatedtrendhasbeent oestablishthatt

ermsr eferr
ingtoacti
veri
ghts(what
wewoul dcallpr
ivi
lege-ri
ghtsandpower-ri
ghts)pr edat
etermsr efer
ri
ngtopassiveri
ghts(what
wewoul dcallcl
aim-ri
ghtsandi mmunity-
ri
ghts).Itappearsthattheearli
estmediev
aldebates
usi
ngr ecogni
zablymoder nright
s-l
anguage,forinstance,
concer nedtopi
cssuchaswhet hert
he
popehasa( power -
)righttorul
eanearthlyempi re,andwhetherthepoorhav ea(pri
vi
lege-
)ri
ght
totakewhattheyneedf r
om thesurpl
usoft herich.

4.Ri
ght
sandFr
eedom

Mostrightsenti
tl
ethei
rholderstofreedom i
nsomesense; i
ndeedholdi
ngar i
ghtcanentai
lthat
oneisfreeinoneormor eofav ari
etyofsenses.Inthemostgeneralter
ms, t
heactiv
e
i
ncidents—thepri
vil
egeandthepower —enti
tlethei
rholderstofr
eedom toactincert
ainways.
Thepassiveinci
dents—t
hecl ai
m andt hei
mmuni ty—oftenenti
tl
ethei
rholder
stofreedom f
rom
undesir
ableacti
onsorstat
es.
Wecanbemor especi f
ic.Asi nglepr i
vilege-
rightmakesi tsholder“freeto”inthesenseofnon-
forbiddenness.Aspywi thasecur it
ycl earance,forinstance,mayhav eaprivi
l
ege-r
ightthat
meansshei sf r
eet oent erahi ghlyclassifi
edf aci
li
tyofherowngov ernment.Onecanbef r
eein
thi
snon- forbi
ddenwaywi thouthav ingt hephy si
calabilitytodowhatonei sfr
eetodo.Thespy ,
forinst ance,sti
llhas“nodut ynot ”t
oent ertheclassifi
edf aci
lit
yev enwhenshei slangui
shingi
n
adi stantforeignpr i
son.Theact ionst hatonei sfreetodoi nthissensemayormaynotbe
phy sicall
ypossi bl
ef oroneatt hemoment ,butatleastt heyarenotdi sal
l
owedbyt her el
evant
norms.

Someonewhohasapai rofpri
vi
legerights—nodutytoperformtheact i
on, nodutynotto
perf
ormt heaction—isfr
eeinanaddi t
ionalsenseofhavingdiscr
etionov erwhethert
operform
theacti
onornot .Forexample,
youmaybef reet
ojoi
napr otestmar ch,ornot,asyouli
ke.Thi
s
dualnon-for
biddennessagai
ndoesnoti mplyphysi
calabil
it
y.Arighthol
dermaybeper mit
tedto
perf
orm ornotper f
orm someaction,butthissti
l
ldoesnotmeant hatshei scapabl
eof
perf
ormingtheact i
onthatsheisfreetoper f
orm.

Incont r
ast,theholderofapower -
rightdoeshaveanabi li
ty.Thisi
sthenormat i
veabili
tyt
o
exerciseauthorit
yinacer t
ainway.( Sumner1987,28)Thisnor mati
v eabi
li
tyconfersfr
eedom i
n
adifferentsense.Aj udgeisf r
eetosent enceaconvictedcr i
minalt
opr i
son.Thejudgeisnot
mer el
yal l
owedt osent encetheprisoner:herpower-
rightgiveshertheabil
it
y—thatis,t
he
authority
—t odoso.Her( power-)r
ightmakesherf r
eet osent encei
nawayt hatnon-j
udgesar
e
notf r
eet osentence.

Asforthepassiverights,manycl aim-r
ightsenti
tl
etheirholderstobefreefrom t
hephysical
i
nterf
erenceorsurveill
anceofot hers.Otherclai
m-ri
ghtsent i
tl
etheirholder
stobefreefr
om
undesi
rablecondit
ionsl i
kehungerorf ear.Immunity-
ri
ghtspar al
lel
claim-ri
ght
sonelevelup.
I
mmuni ty-
right
smaket heirhol
der sfr
eef r
om theauthorit
yofot her
s,andsoent i
tl
ethei
rholder
s
tobefreefrom conditi
onsl i
ketyrannyorexploit
ati
on.

Alegalsyst
em canbeseenasadi st
ri
but
ionofall
ofthesevari
etiesoffr
eedom.Anyl egal
syst
em willsetoutrul
esspeci
fyi
ngwhoisf r
eetoacti
nwhichway s,
andwhoshoul dbef ree
fr
om whichunwant edacti
onsandcondit
ions.Adevel
opedlegalsystem wi
ll
alsodeterminewho
hastheauthorit
y(andsowhoi sfr
ee)toi
nterpr
etandenfor
cet heserul
es.

Moregenerall
y,anypoli
ti
calconst
it
uti
oncanbeseenasamul t
i-
lev
eledstruct
ureofri
ghtsthat
dist
ri
butesauthori
tyoverr
ulesofconductinadi
stinct
iveway.Ademocr ati
cconsti
tut
ion,f
or
example,maygivev ot
ersthepowertoelectl
egi
slator
s,whohavecer t
ainpowerstoenactlaws,
whichthejudi
ciaryhascertainpower st
ointer
pret
,andt hepoli
cehav ecertai
npower st o
enfor
ce, l
eavi
ngcertaincoursesofconductopenasl egalforcit
izenst opursue.Thef actsabout
whoshoul dbefreetodowhatwi thi
nanylegalorpoli
ti
calsystem, aswel lasthefactsabout
whoshoul dbefreefrom whichact i
onsandcondit
ions,canber epr esent
edascompl ex,lay
ered
str
ucturesofri
ghts—exponent i
all
ymor ecomplexthaninthediagr am ofthepropertyr i
ght
above.

5.Ri
ght
sandReasons

5.
1Ri
ght
sasTr
umps

Thought herear edisputesov erthefunct i

onofr ight
sandt hehi storyofri
ghtsl anguage,most
agreet hatright shavespecial normativeforce.Ther easonst hatright
sprov i
dear eparti
cular
ly
power fulorwei ght
yr easons,whichov erri
dereasonsofot hersor t
s.Dwor ki
n’smet aphorisof
ri
ghtsas“ tr
umps”( Dwor ki
n1984) .Rightspermi ttheirhol
der stoactincer t
ainway s,orgive
reasonst ot reattheirholdersincertai
nway sorper mittheirholderstoactincer tai
nway s,even
i
fsomesoci al aim wouldbeser vedbydoi ngot herwise.AsMi l
lwr ot
eofthet rumpingpowerof
therightt ofreeexpr ession:“I
fallmanki ndmi nusonewer eofoneopi ni
on,manki ndwoul dbe
nomor ejustifi
edi nsilenci
ngt hatoneper sont hanhe, i
fhehadt hepower ,woul dbeinsil
encing
manki nd”( Mill1859, 20).

Howr ightsbecomei mbuedwi ththisspecialnor

mat i
veforceisamat t
erofongoi ngschol arl
y
i
nquiry.AsSr eeni
vasan(2010)not es,aHohfeldi
anclai
m- r
ightinitsel
fonlyentail
stheexi stence
ofadut ywi thacer t
ainstr
ucture,andnotadut ywithacertainforce.Ahasacl aim againstBi f
andonl yifBhasadut ytoA: i
nt hisdefi
nit
ioniti
sthe“dir
ection”ofB’sduty(thatitisowedt oA)
whichcor relatesB’sdutyt
oA’ sright;not
hingissai
dinthedef ini
ti
onaboutt hedut y
’sstrengt h.
Why“ directedduties”—asabove, thoseowedt oanentit
y—hav egreaternormat i
vepr i
ori
ty
remainsanopenquest i
on:theonl ybroadconsensusisthattheydo.( SeeThompson2004on
“bi
polar”judgment s.)

Dwor kin’
smetaphorsuggest sthatrightst
rumpnon- r
ightobjecti
v es,suchasincreasi
ngnati
onal
weal t
h.Whatoft hepriorityofoner i
ghtwithrespecttoanot her?Wecankeept othetrumps
met aphorwhil
er ecognizingthatsomer i
ghtshav eahigherpr i
oritythanother
s.Wi thi
nthetr
ump
sui
t, ajackst
il
lbeatsasev enorat hree.Yourrightofwayataf lashingy el
l
owl i
ghthasprior
it
y
overt heri
ghtofwayoft hedriverfacingaflashingred;andther ightofwayofanambul ance
withsi r
ensontrumpsy oubot h.

Thi
smet aphoroftr
umpsl
eadsnatur
all
ytothequesti
onofwhet
herther
eisanyri
ghtthathas
pri
ori
tyt
oabsolutel
yal
lot
hernor
mativeconsi
derat
ions:
whet
herther
eisan“aceofri
ghts.
”
Gewi rt
h(1981)assert
st hatt
hereisatleastonesuchabsol uter i
ght:therightofallper sonsnot
tobemadet hevict
im ofahomi ci
dalproject.Forsuchar i
ghttobeabsol ute,i
twoul dhav et o
trumpev er
yotherconsiderat
ionwhatsoev er:otherright
s,economi cef fi
ciency,savi
ngl ives,
ev er
ythi
ng.Notallwouldagreewi t
hGewi rt
ht hatev enthi
sv erypower fulri
ghtov err
idesev ery
conceivabl
enor mati
veconcern.Somewoul dt hinkitmightbej usti
fi
ablet oinfri
ngeev ent his
rightwerethi
ssomehownecessar y,f
orexampl e,topreventthedeat hsofagr eatmanypeopl e.
Ifiti
spermissibl
etokilloneinordert
osav eabi ll
i
on, t
hennotev enGewi rth’
srighti
sabsol ute.

5.
2Conf
li
ctsofRi
ght
s?

Mostt heoristswouldagreet hatA’sclaim-ri

ghtgivesBwhatRaz( 1975,35–48)cal lsan
exclusionaryreason:asecond- orderreasonnott oactonsomef i
rst-
orderreason.Dwor kin’
s
trumpingmet aphormakesi ttempt i
ngt ocharacteri
zethenormativeforceofrightsint he
strongertermsofconcl usiv
er easons.Wecoul dindeedattempttodef i
netheHohf el
dian
i
nci dentsintheseterms.A’shav ingacl ai
m-ri
ghtt hatBφwoul dimplythatBhasaconcl usi
ve
reasont oφ, andA’shav i
ngapr i
vil
ege-ri
ghttoφwoul dimplyt
hatAhasnoconcl usivereason
nott oφ.Power sandimmuni tieswouldt hendeterminetheway sinwhichagent swer eandwer e
notabl etoalterthepatt
ernsofconcl usivereasonsi ntheworl
d.

Wer ewet ogot hisr

oute,wewoul dneedtotemperthe“conclusiveness”oftheconclusive
reasonsimpliedbyrightsasserti
onst oaccommodat ethefactsthatsomer ightshavepriori
tyt
o
others,andthatfewifanyrightsoutweighabsolutel
yal
l non-
rightconsider
ationsinall
cir
cumst ances.Ifweassociaterightswit
hconclusiv
ereasons, t
henf oratl
eastmostr ights
thesereasonscanonl ybeconcl usivewit
hrespecttosomebutnotal lcompet i
ng
considerat
ions.

Thisli
neoft houghtcanbedev el
opedbysay ingthatthereasonsassociatedwi t
hr i
ghtsare
conclusivewithi
nt heareacov eredbyt heright,butarenotconclusi
veout si
deoft hatarea.Each
ri
ghttrumpscompet ingconsider ationsinmostci r
cumst ances,
buttherearecer t
ain
cir
cumst ancesinwhi chanotherr ightwi t
hhi gherpriori
ty—orapressi
ngnon- ri
ght
considerati
on—det er
mi neswhatmayorshoul dbedone.Fr om t
hisperspecti
ve,theconclusive
reasonsi mpli
edbyr ightsasserti
onsr eal
lyareconcl usi
ve,butonlywit
hincertaincircumstances.
Everyrighti
sabsol ute,wit
hinapr ecisel
ydel i
mi t
edspace.( Cont
rastt
hispositionwit hGewirt
h’s
defenseofasi ngle,unquali
fi
edabsol ut
eright.)

Thetheoret
icalposit
ionattheendoft hi
sli
neofthoughti
scal
led“speci
fi
cati
onism”(Shaf
er-
Landau1995, Oberdi
ek2008).Thespecifi
cati
oni
stholdst
hateachri
ghtisdefi
nedbyan
el
aboratesetofqualifi
cat
ionsthatspeci
fywhenitdoesandwhenitdoesnotapply:asetof
qual
i
ficat
ionst
hatdef
inet
her
ight
’s“
space.
”

Thet estofspeci fi
cationism ishowconv inci
nglyitcanexpl ai
nwhatoccur swhenr ight sappear
toconf l
ict.Rightsdoof tenappeart oconf l
i
ct.(Si
nnot t
-Armstrong1996; Kamm 2007, 262–301)
Forexampl e,onacer taindayi tmayseem t hatthepubl i
c’
sr i
ghttopr otesti
sconf l
ictingwi t
hthe
government ’
sr i
ghttokeepor deronpublicproperty.Whenconf rontedwi thacasel iket hi
sone,
wewi llj
udget hatoneort heot her(say,
thepubl i
c’s)ri
ghtshouldpr evail
.Howev er,wedonot
bel
iev ethatoneoft heser ightsisalwaysst r
ongert hantheother.Gi v
endi ff
erentcircumst ances,
ourjudgmentmi ghtfavort heot her(i
nthiscase, t
hegov ernment’s)right.Whenr i
ght sappeart o
confli
ctlikethis,theusef ulnessoft heimageofr i
ghtsast r
umpsbegi nst odim.Bot hoft hese
ri
ghtsar et r
umpcar ds,yeti tdoesnotappeart hatoner ightalwayst r
umpst heother.

Aspeci fi
cationistwillat t
emptt odispel anyappear anceofconf l
ictofrights.Forexampl e, a
specificationistwi l
lsayt hatwhati scol l
oqui al
lyr eferredt oas“ t
hepubl ic’srightt opr otest ”is
actually,oncl oserexami nati
on, “t
hepubl i
c’
sr ightt opr otest,unl
esst hepr otestwoul dcause
seriousr i
skt ol i
feorpr oper t
y ,orwoul dleadt ot hespr eadofadeadl ydi sease, or …”Si mi larl
y,
thegov ernment ’sri
ghtshoul dr eall
ybespeci f
iedmor ef ull
yast her i
ght:“tocont rolwhat
happensonpubl icproper ty
,butnott ot heext entofst oppingpeacef ul protest,unl esst he
protestwoul dleadt ot hespr eadofdeadl ydisease, butnot …”Ont hespeci f
icationistv i
ew, ri
ght s
neverdoconf li
ctinthesenseofov er
lappingi nagi vencase.Rat her,ri
ghtsf ittoget herlike
piecesi naj igsawpuzzl e,sot hati neachci rcumst ancet herei sonlyoner i
ghtwhi chdet ermi nes
whati sper mi tt
ed, f
orbi ddenorr equired.Ev eryrighti sabsol utewithi
ni tsownar ea, butt hear ea
i
nwhi cheachr ightprev ail
sisel abor atelyger r
y mander ed.Rightsnev erconf li
ct:theyar eal way s,
touseSt einer’sphrase, “
compossi ble”(Steiner1994) .

Feinberg( 1980,221–51)andThomson( 1990, 82–104)obj ecttot hi

sspeci f
icationi
stviewof
ri
ghts.First,ful
lyspecifiedri
ghtswouldbeunknowabl e:noonecoul dsetoutal lofthe
qualifi
cati
onst hatdef i
neev enthesimplestr i
ght.Second, r
ightssounder stoodl osetheir
explanatoryf or
ce:fort hespeci
ficat
ioni
strightscanonl ybet heconcl usions, notthepremi ses,
ofargument sconcer ni
ngwhi chsideinanydi sputeshoul dprevail
.Third, specifi
cati
onists
cannotexpl ainthe“mor alr
esi
due”ofa“ defeated”right.Forinstance,consi deracasei nwhi ch
yourpr opertyri
ghtint hepiecoolingony ourwi ndowsi l
lconfli
ctswi t
hJohn’ srighttodowhat
hemustdot okeepf rom starvi
ng.John’srightmaypr evai
linthiscase: Johnmayhav ear ightt
o
eaty ourpie.Sti
ll,
afterJohnr i
ghtful
lyeatsy ourpieheshoul dapol ogi
zet oy ou, andcompensat e
youifhecan.

Thomsonall
egesthatspeci
fi
cat
ioni
stscannotexplai
ntherequi
rementsthatJohnapol
ogi
zesto
andcompensatesyou,si
nceonthespeci
ficat
ioni
stviewther
eisnorightofyourst
hathehas
vi
olatedwhenheconsumesy ourfood.Thomsonpr eferst hev i
ewt hattherereallyar econf l
ict
s
ofri
ghts,andsuggest sthatweshoul dspeakofa“ defeat ed”r i
ghtasbei ngper missibl y
“i
nfri
nged”(insteadof“vi
olated”),
leavi
ngr esidualobl i
gationsont heinfri
nger.Freder ick( 2014)
chasesdownsomespeci fi
cationi
strepl
iest otheseobj ections,andconcl udest hatalt hough
moral r
ight
sar estrongmor alconsider
ations, t
heyar eonl ypr otanto.Liberto(2014)dev elopsa
moresophi sti
catedspecifi
cationi
stpositi
on, whichi scr i
ti
quedbyMont ague( 2015) .Mul l
ins
(f
orthcoming)of f
ersalogicalframeworkofpr acti
cal reasoni ngthatclaimst ocapt uret he
dynamicsoft hedebateov erspecifi
cati
on.

5.
3Suppor
tamongRi
ght
s

Philosophershav ediscussednotonl yhowr ightscanconf li

ct,buthowt heysomet imessuppor t
oneanot her .Forexampl e,HenryShuehasar guedthatbot hrightsofsecur i
tyandr ightsof
subsi st
encear e“ basicri
ghts”becauset heyar eindispensabl ef orthefull
enjoymentofal lother
ri
ght s—whi l
eot herrightsarenon-basi cbecauset heyar enoti ndispensablefortheenj oymentof
theset wo.Iftheenj oymentorr ealizationofacont r
ov ersialri
ghti sanimpor t
antpr econditi
on
fortheenj oymentofanuncont r
ov ersialright,onecandef endt hecont r
oversial
rightby
document i
ngi tsstrongsuppor t
ingr ole.Sucha“ li
nkagear gument ”isusedbyShuet odefend
ther i
ghttosubsi stenceasabasi cr i
ght ,andbySent odef endr i
ghtstodemocr acyandf reedom
ofthepr essassuppor t
iveoftherightt oadequat enutriti
oni ndev elopi
ngcount ri
es( Shue1996,
Sen1999) .Shue’sandSen’ sasser tionshav ebeencr it
icizedasexagger ated(Nickel 2008,
My hv ol
d-Hanssen2003( i
ntheOt herI nternetResour ces) )
.

Nickel (2008, 2010, 2016)dev el

opsasophi sticatedtypol ogyofsuppor ti
ngr elationsbet ween
ri
ght s( seeal soGi labert2010).Oner i
ghtst rongl ysuppor tsanotherwheni tisl ogi cal
lyor
practical l
yi nconsi stenttoendor setheimpl ement ati
onoft hesecondrightwi thoutendor sing
thesi mul taneousi mpl ement ati
onoft hefirst.Forexampl e, t
heri
ghttobodi lysecur it
ystrongly
suppor tsther ighttof r
eedom ofassembl y.Oner ightweakl ysupportsanot herwheni ti
susef ul
butnotessent i
altoi t
.Therighttoeducat ion, forexampl e,weaklysuppor tsther ighttoaf air
tri
al.Ni ckel ar guest hatthest r
engthofsuppor ti
ngrelati
onsbet weenr i
ght sv arieswi thqual i
tyof
i
mpl ement ation.Poor l
yimplement edr i
ghtspr ov i
delitt
lesuppor ttootherright s, whil
eonest hat
aremor eef fect i
velyimplement edtendt opr ov i
degr eatersuppor tt
oot herright s.Ther i
ghtt o
duepr ocesssuppor tstheri
ghtt oequal tr
eat mentf ormember sofdif
ferentr aci alandethni c
groups—butt hesuppor twil
lbesof tifther i
ghtt oduepr ocessisonlyweakl yi mpl emented.

Rightst
hatweakl ysuppor teachotherareinterdependent.Rightst
hatst r
ongl ysuppor teach
otherareindi
vi
sible.Beginningwiththe1968Pr ocl
amationofTehr an,theUni tedNat i
onshas
promotedt hei
deat hat“Sincehumanr ightsandf undament alfr
eedomsar ei ndivisi
ble,t
hef ul
l
real
izat
ionofcivi
l andpoliti
calri
ghtswithouttheenjoymentofeconomi c,soci alandcultural
ri
ghtsisimpossible”(seeWhel an2010).Nickel hol
dsthatthisindi
v i
sibi
li
tythesisexagger ates
thedensi
tyandst
rengt
hofsuppor t
ingr
elati
onsamonghumanr i
ghts.Heal l
ows,however
,that
manysupporti
ngrel
ati
onsexistbet
weenr i
ghts—par
ti
cul
arl
yunderhigh-qual
it
y
i
mplementati
on—andendorsestheuseoflinkagear
gumentswhenindispensabi
l
itycanbe
shown.

5.
4Ri
ght
stoDoWr
ong

Arethereri
ghtstodowr ong?Manyhav ethoughtso.Waldr
on(1993,63)gi
vestheexampl eof
anti
warprotestersorganizi
ngar owdydemonst rati
onnearaRemembr anceDayservi
ce;
Wellman(1997, 33)offerst
hei l
lust
rati
onofedgingintoacheckoutl
inewit
haf ul
lcart
,just
aheadofat i
redwomancar r
yingtri
plet
s.Thepuzzleishowtheposit
ivenormati
veforceof“a
ri
ght”canexistsocloset oanopposednegat i
venormati
vepole,“
wrong.”I
nHohfeldi
ant er
ms,
howcant herebear ight(nodutynot )t
odowhati tiswrong(dut
ynot)todo?(Simi
larquestions
ari
seabout“theabuseofr i
ghts”(Schauer1984).)

Therear etwomai nreadingsofr i

ghtstodowr ong.Thef i
rstreadingchar act erizesmostr i
ght
s
asfurtheringthehol der’
saut onomy .Rightsent i
tl
et heirholderstomakechoi ces, andas
Waldron( 1993)say st heimpor tanceofaper son’shav i
ngchoi ceswoul dbedi mi nishedifshe
werefor cedtodot her i
ghtthing.Event hought heper sonhasno( pri
vil
ege-)r ightt operform an
acti
ont hatiswrong, i
twouldnev ert
helessviolateani mpor tant(claim-)rightofher sf orother
s
tocompel hernott odot hatt hi
ng.Tot akethespeechexampl e,wer espectt heaut onomyof
speakerswhenweal l
owt hem t ospeakunmol ested—ev enwhent heydowr ongbyexpr essing
themselv esindisrespectfulway s.(Foradef enseoft hi
sreadi ngagai nstobject ionsf rom
Galst
onandGeor ge, seeHer stein2012.Ont heexi stenceandv alueofl egalr i
ght st odol egal
wrongs, seeHerst ein2013.)

Thesecondr eadi ngofr i

ght stodowr ongseest hem asi nvolvingami d-sentenceshif
ti n
domai nsofr easons.Ther eisnomy stery,afterall,inhav ingal egal r
ightt odosomet hing
mor all
ywr ong.Thepot ent i
alforalegal r
ightt odoamor alwr ongar i
sesf r
om thefactthatthe
domai nsofl egal andmor alreasonsar enotper fect l
yov er l
apped.Onehasal egalpr
ivi
legeto
edgei nfrontoft het iredmot herinthecheck- outl ine,butt hi
si ssomet hingthatonehasamor al
dutynott odo.Si mi larly
,onemi ghthav eamor al privi
l
eget odowhatonehasnocust omar y
priv
ilegetodo( amor alrightt odoacust omar ywr ong) ,andsoon.Eachdomai nofreasonsi s
disti
nct,andhowev erconcl usivearet her easonst hatanypar ti
cularrights-asser
ti
onimpl i
es,
thesear eonlyr easonswi thinasi ngledomai nofr easons( mor al,
orl egal,orcustomary )
.Osiel
(2019)exami nest hesoci ologyofst igmat izati
ont hatencour agesi ndividualsandstatesnott o
exercisetheirlegal rightsinway sthatviolatemor alnorms.
Ar el
atedquest ionconcernshowi tcancomet obeper missi
bletotreatAincertai
nway sthat
would, butf
ort heactionsorsituati
onofA, bewrong.Forexample,iti
swr ongpurposefull
yto
i
mposeahar dshiponanot herperson, unlessthatpersonhasactedi nawayt hatmerit
s
punishment.Wel l
man( 2017)makesacl osestudyofhowi tcanbeper missibl
etopunish,
concludingthatt hebestexplanati
oni sthatt hewrongdoerhasforfeit
edherr i
ghtagai
nsthar d
tr
eatment .Asepar ateli
neofschol arshipr unni
ngthroughworkbyThomson, McMahan, Otsuka,
Frowe, andLazardebat eshowi tcanbeper missi
bletoatt
ackinnocentsdur i
ngwar(seeWal en
2019, 2–8).

5.
5Ri
ght
stoBel
i
eve,
Feel
,andWant

Mor al r
ight
s,l
egalrights,andcust omaryri
ghtsalldefi
nedomai nsofright
swi t
hinthereal
m of
ri
ght sofconduct:rightsconcerninghowagent smayandshoul dact.Whenourr easonswithin
theset hreedi
ffer
entdomai nsconf l
ict
,wemayhav ereasonsofdi ff
erentki
ndst oactindi
fferent
way s.Yetthereareal sori
ghtsent ir
elybey
ondther ealm ofconduct.Thesear eri
ghtstobelieve,
tofeel andtowant .Forexampl e,theprimeministerassert
st hathehadar ighttobeli
evewhat
hisadv isor
stoldhim.Thear t
istsaysshehasar ighttofeelangr yathercri
ti
cs.Thef r
ustr
ated
subur banit
ecompl ainshehasar ighttowantmor eoutofl i
fe.

Ther ealm ofr i

ghtsofrightstobel i
ev e,t
of eel
,andt owantar ethereal
msofepi stemi c,of
affective,andofconativer i
ghts.Toget herwi t
hther eal
m ofrightsofconduct,thesear ethefour
realmsofr i
ghts.Eachoft hesef ourrealmsofr i
ghtsdefi
nesasepar ateconcept ual space:there
arenoepi stemicri
ghtst oact,andnoaf fecti
verightstobeli
ev e.Whatisdisti
nctiveaboutt he
threer ealmsofr i
ghtsbey ondt herightsofconducti sthattheyseem onlyt ocont ai
nonl y
pri
v i
lege-ri
ghts(Wenar2003) .Onemay ,
forexampl e,haveapr ivi
l
ege-r
ighttobelievewhatone’ s
eyest ellone,andapr i
vilege-
righttof eelproudofwhatonehasdone.I tisint
erest i
ngt o
consi derwhyt heseepistemic, aff
ective,andconat i
verealmscont ai
nnocl aims, power s,or
i
mmuni ti
es.

Philosopher shav elongbeeni nterestedinepi stemicr i

ghtsi nparti
cular(Al t
schul 2010(Ot her
Int
er netResour ces),Gr aham andPeder sen2012) ,t
hought hereisalsoskept icism aboutthis
categor y( Gl
ick2010) .Wi ll
iam James, forinstance,cal l
sTheWi ll
toBel i
ev e,“anessayi n
j
ustificationoff aith,adef enseofourr i
ghtt oadoptabel ievingatti
tudeinr eli
giousmat t
ers, i
n
spi
teoft hef actthatourmer el
yl ogicali
nt el
lectmaynothav ebeencoer ced. ”James’ s“radical”
concl usionint heessayi sthat“ wehav et her i
ghttobel i
ev eatourownr i
skanyhy pothesisthat
i
sliv eenought ot emptourwi l
l
”( James1897, 2,29).Similarly
,thedeepestquest ionsinKant ’s
phil
osophyar ef r
amedi nt ermsofr ight
s.I ntheCr i
tiqueofPur eReason, theTr anscendent al
Deduct ionoft heCat egor iesaimst oprov ethev ali
dityoft heempl oymentoft heconcept sof
pureunder standing.I nt heCr it
iqueofPr acti
cal Reason, t
heDeduct i
onofFr eedom ai mst o
demonst rateourent i
tlementt or egardour selvesasf ree.Inbot hDeductions, thecent r
al
questi
onisaquaest
ioi
uri
s:“
Bywhatri
ght?”Kant
’squest
ionsare:
Bywhatr
ightdoweempl
oy
thecategor
ies;
andbywhatr
ightdowethi
nkofoursel
vesasfree?

6.Thr
eeAppr
oachest
otheJust
if
icat
ionofRi
ght
s

Therearetwol eadi
ngphi losophi calapproachest oexplainingwhi chfundamentalri
ghtsof
conducttherear e,andwhyt heser ightsshouldber espect ed.Theset woapproachesar ebroadly
i
dentif
iabl
easdeont ol ogical andconsequent i
ali
st.Statust heori
esholdthathumanbei ngshav e
att
ri
butest hatmakei tfitt
ingt oascr ibecertai
nrightstothem, andmaker espectfortheseright
s
appropri
ate.Instrument altheorieshol dthatrespectforpar ti
cularri
ghtsisameansf orbringing
aboutsomeopt i
mal dist r
ibutionofadv ant
ages.Eachappr oachhaschar acter
ist
icstrengt
hsand
weaknesses; thelong- runningcont estbetweent hem isongoi ng.

Qui
nn(
1993,
170)sket
chesamoder
nst
atust
heor
ythi
sway
:

Aper sonisconsti
tut
edbyhi sbodyandhismind.Theyarepar t
soraspectsofhim.Forthatver
y
reason,i
tisfit
ti
ngthathehav epri
marysayoverwhatmaybedonet othem—notbecausesuch
anar r
angementbestpr omotesoveral
lhumanwel f
are,
butbecauseanyar r
angementthat
deniedhimthatsaywoul dbeagr avei
ndigni
ty.I
ngivi
nghimt hi
sauthori
ty,
mor al
i
tyrecogni
zes
hisexist
enceasani ndi
v i
dualwit
hendsofhisown—ani ndependentbei
ng.Sincethati
swhathe
i
s, hedeservesthi
srecognit
ion.

Qui
nnclai
mst hatther
ei ssomeattri
buteoftheperson—here,bei
ng“anindi
vi
dualwi
thendsof
hi
sown”—thatmer i
tsrecognit
ionfr
om other
s.Ther ecogni
ti
onthatisduetoeachi
ndi
vi
dualcan
beaccor
dedtot hati
ndividual
byrespecti
nghisfundamentalri
ghts.

Quinncont r
astshisstat
usapproacht orightswi t
honet hatascr
ibesr i
ghts“becausesuchan
arrangementbestpr omotesoverallhumanwel fare.”Histargeti
sconsequent i
ali
sttheori
esof
ri
ghts,thepar adigm ofwhichareut i
li
tariant heories.Wemetsuchaut i
li
tari
antheoryofri
ghts
abov einJohnSt uar
tMill
’
sconcept ualizationofr ightsas“ somethingwhi chsocietyoughtto
defendmei nthepossessionof.
”Mi llbelievedt hatsocietyoughttodef endt heindiv
iduali
n
possessi onofherr i
ghtsbecausedoi ngsowoul dbr ingaboutthegr eatestutil
i
tysummed
acrosst hemember softhatsociety.ForMi l
l,asforot herinst
rument altheori
sts,r
ightsar
ea
toolforpr oducinganoptimaldi
st r
ibutionofi nt
erestsacr osssomegr oup.

Thet
woappr
oachesdi
ff
ershar
plyov
ert
her
oleofconsequencesi
nthej
ust
if
icat
ionofascr
ibi
ng
ri
ghts.St
atustheor
ist
sholdthatri
ght
sshouldberespect
edbecausei ti
sfi
tti
ngtodoso,and
notbecauseofthegoodconsequencesthatwil
lfl
owfrom sodoing.Bycontr
ast
,wit
hinan
i
nstr
ument alt
heorygoodconsequencesaret
hejusti
fi
cati
onforpromulgat
ingandenfor
cing
ri
ghts.AsQuinn(1993,173)say
saboutthestat
usapproach:

Iti
snott hatwethi
nki
tfi
tti
ngtoascri
beri
ghtsbecausewet hinkitisagoodthi
ngthatr
ight
sbe
respected.Rat
herwethi
nkrespectf
orri
ghtsagoodt hingpreci
selybecausewethi
nkpeopl
e
actual
lyhav et
hem—and…thattheyhavethem becauseiti
sfitt
ingthatt
heyshoul
d.

Withi
nast atusappr oach,right
sar enotmeansforthepromot i
onofgoodconsequences.They
arerather
,inNozi ck’
sphr ase,sideconst
rai
ntsonthepur suitofgoodconsequences(Nozick
1974,29).Ast atusapproachf rownsonanyr i
ght
sv iol
ati
on, evenf orthesakeofmaxi
mizingthe
non-vi
olat
ionofr ight
sov erall(
asina“ ut
il
it
ari
ani
sm ofrights”).Suchanappr oachemphasizes
the“agent-
relati
ve”reasonst hateachpersonhastoav oidviolati
ngt heri
ghtsofot
her
s.

Astatus-
basedjusti
fi
cati
onthusbegi
nswiththenatureoft heri
ghthol
derandarri
ves
i
mmedi atel
yattheri
ght.Theinst
rument
alapproachstar
t swiththedesir
edconsequences(
li
ke
maximum util
it
y)andworksbackwardtoseewhi chri
ghts-ascr
ipti
onswillpr
oducethose
consequences.

6.
1St
atus-
BasedRi
ght
s

Statustheor i
esbel ongtothetraditi
onofnat uralri
ghtstheories.Allnaturalri
ght st heori
esfix
uponf eaturest hathumanshav ebyt heirnat ure,whichmaker espectforcer tainrights
appropriate.Thet heori
esdiff
erov erpreciselywhi chattr
ibutesofhumansgi v eri
set orights,
al
thoughnon- religioustheori
estendt ofixupont hesamesor tsofat t
ributesdescr i
bedinmor e
orlessmet aphy sicalormorali
zedt erms: f
r eewill
, r
ati
onalit
y,autonomy ,ortheabi lit
ytoregulate
one’slif
einaccor dancewithone’schosenconcept ionofthegoodl ife.Nat uralri
ght stheorist
s
agreethathumanr easoncangr aspthef actt hatitisappropriat
etot reatbeingswi thsuch
attr
ibutesincer tai nways,al
thought heydi sagreeonwhet hersuchf actsar esel f
-ev i
dent.

Naturalright
st heor yreacheditshi ghpointintheearl
ymoder nera,intheworkofGr oti
us,
Hobbes, Pufendor f,andespeci all
yLocke.Lockear guedthatmenhav eri
ghtsto“l
if
e, l
i
berty,
and
estate”inapr e-poli
ticalstat
eofnat ur
e,andt hatt
hesenaturalr
ightsputli
mitsont helegi
ti
mate
authorit
yoft hest ate.Locke’sinfluencecanbeseeni ntherevoluti
onaryAmer i
canandFr ench
poli
ti
cal document soft heeighteenthcent ur
y,andespeci
all
yinJef f
erson’
sDeclarati
onof
Independence( 1776) :
“Wehol dt hesetruthstobeself-
evi
dent,thatallmenarecreatedequal,
thatt
heyareendowedbythei
rCreat
orwi
thcer
tai
nunal
i
enabl
eri
ght
s,t
hatamongt
hesear
eLi
fe,
Liber
ty,
andthePursui
tofHappi
ness.
”

Ther evi
val ofstatust heorywithi
ncont empor aryphilosophybeganwi thNozick’sAnar chyStat
e
andUt opia( 1974).Whi leNozickdoesacknowl edgeadebtt oLocke’stheoryofpr operty,
his
workbel ongswi t
hint heKantiant r
adit
ionofnat uralr
ightst heorizi
ng.Nozickcent ershis
explanationoft hemor alf
orceofi ndivi
dualri
ght sont heKant i
ani mperati
v eagainsttreat
ing
humani tymer elyasameanst oanend.Eachper son’sr i
ghtsimposesi de-constr
ai nt
sonot her
s’
pursuitoftheirgoal s,Nozicksay s,becauseeachper sonpossessesani nviol
abil
itythatall
othersmustr espect .“I
ndi
vidualshav eri
ghts,”hewr ote,“andt herearethi
ngsnoper sonor
groupmaydot ot hem ( wi
thoutv i
olati
ngtheirri
ght s)
”( Nozick1974, i
x).

Manyfindthi
sapproachofgroundi
ngofr i
ght
sinindi
vi
dualdi
gnit
yappeali
ng.Therei
sa
di
rect
nessandcl ar
it
ytost
atusexplanat
ionsoff
undamentalr
ight
s.Forexample,Kamm (
2007,
247)expl
ainstheri
ghtoff
reeexpressi
onasfoll
ows:

Ther i
ghttospeakmaysi mpl ybetheonlyappropri
atewayt otreatpeoplewi thmindsofthei
r
ownandt hecapacitytousemeanst oexpressit…Notr ecognizingaper son’sopti
onof
speakingistofail
t orespecthim…Tosayt hatanygivenper soni snotentit
ledtothestr
ongright
tofr
eespeechi s…awayofsay ingthatcert
aincruci
alfeaturesofhumannat urearenot
suff
icienttogeneratetherightinanyone.Andthisseemst obeami stake.

Moreov er,stat
us-
basedrightsareattr
acti
vel
yrobust.Whil
et hej
usti
fi
cationsofi nstr
ument al
ri
ghtsar ealwaysconti
ngentoncal cul
ati
onsconcerningconsequences,status-
basedr i
ghtsare
anchoredf ir
mlyini
ndivi
dual di
gnity
.Thismakesiteasytoexplai
nwhyst atus-
basedr ightsare
str
ong,al mostunquali
fi
edr i
ghts,andthi
sisapositi
onwhi chmanybel i
ev eproperlyexpresses
thegreatv al
ueofeachper son.

Howev er,thestrengthofstatus- basedri

ghtscanal sobeseenasaweaknessoft hetheor y.One
doesnotwi shtobecar r
iedfrom t hegreati
mpor tanceofeachindividualt
ot heimplausible
positi
ont hatallf
undament alrightsareabsolute.AsNagel (
2002, 36)all
owswhi l
edef endinga
statusview, “
thereareevil
sgr eatenoughsot hatonewouldbej usti
fiedi
nmur deri
ngort or
turi
ng
aninnocentper sont opr
ev entt hem.”Consequences, i
fbadenough, dojusti
fythequalif
ication
ofindivi
dual r
ights,whi
chleav est hestat
ust heori
stneedi
ngt oexplainhowat heorywhi ch
rej
ectsconsequencessor esol utelyatt
heout setcanconcedetheirimportancelateron.
Mor eov er,thesimpl i
cit
yoft hest at usappr oacht ori
ghtscanal soappeart obeal iabi
li
ty.On
closeexami nati
on,thefundament alrightsthatmostpeopl ebel ieveinareintr
icately“
shaped. ”
Forexampl e,considerthewi dely-accept edrighttofreeexpressi on.Thi
sr i
ghtincludesther i
ght
tomakedamni ngper sonal at t
acksonot hers.Yetther i
ghtismuchmor eper missiveabout
attackingpubl i
cfigurest hani tisaboutassai l
i
ngpr i
vatecit
izens.Howcoul dast atusappr oach
explaint hisdisti
nctionbet weenpubl icf i
guresandpr iv
atecitizens?Oragai n:therighttofree
speechsomet i
mescont ainsar i
ghtt osaywhatt hespeakerknowst obeunt r
ue.Yetwet endto
bemor et olerantofdecei tfulspeechi npol i
ticalcampaignst hanwear eofdecei t
fulspeechi n
adv er
tisingori nthecour tr
oom.I tisanopenquest ionwhetherst at
ustheoryhast heconcept ual
resourcest oexplainwhyi ndividual r
ightsshoul dbeshapedi nt hesespecificway s.

Statustheor yalsof acesthechal l

engeofv i
ndi
cati
ngi t
sf oundati
onsandi tsscope.Whyaf teral
l
i
si t“f
it
ting”toascr i
beindividualsrights?TheKant i
anv alueofinviolabil
it
ycanl ookpuzzl i
ng
whenpr esent edi ndependent l
yofamet aphysi
calgrounding.AsNagel (
2002,34)admi ts,“i
thas
provenext remel ydi ff
icul
tt oaccountf orsuchabasi c, i
ndivi
duali
zedv al
uesucht hatitbecomes
mor al
lyintell
igible.”Thisisaqui etechoofBent ham’ sprotestthatthedoct ri
neofnat ur
al ri
ghts
“i
sf r
om begi nni ngt oendsomuchf latasserti
on:i
tlaysdownasaf undament al andinv iol
able
pri
nciplewhat everi sindispute”( Bentham 1796,66).Cr uft(
2010, 451)hasat tempt edtodeepen
thetheor yoft henon- i
nstrument alvalueofbasicrights,byshowi ngt hatsuchr i
ghtsar e
constit
utiveof“ r elati
onshipst hatbindal lhumanstoget heri
nf el
lowshi pasmember sofa
shared-proto-communi ty
.”

Evenso, statust heoristsmustal sor esolveani nternaldebat eov erexact l

ywhi chr i
ghtsshoul d
bethoughtt oexpr essani ndivi
dual ’
sinviolabi
li
ty.Nozi ckhol dsthatst atus-basedr i
ghtsinclude
ri
ghtst owhat everpr opertyonehasacqui r
ed, whileotherst atust heoristsrejectthe“ r
ight
l
ibert
ar i
anism”t owhi chNozi ck’sposi ti
onl eads.Ther esolutionoft hisdebat ebecamemor e
urgentwhenagr oupofneo- Kantianandneo- Lockean“ l
eftli
ber t
ar i
an”t heori
stshav eadvanced
theviewt hatt hest at
usofi ndivi
dual srequiresthateachbeaccor dedst rongr i
ght stoself-
owner shi
p, andal soiniti
all
yequal sharesof“ world-owner ship”(Val l
ent yneandSt ei
ner2000,
Otsuka2003) .Statust heori
esalsoneedt opaypar ticularattentiont other i
ghtst hatsociety
shouldenf orceincasesofwi despr eadnon- compl i
ancewi t
h“ ideal”rights.(QuongandSt one
2015).

6.
2Inst
rument
alRi
ght
s

Inst
rument al
theori
esseer i
ghtsasi nstrumentsforachievinganopt i
mal di
str
ibuti
onof
advantages.Thearchetypali
nstr
ument alt
heoryissomef orm oftwo-l
evelconsequenti
ali
sm,
suchasr ul
eut i
li
tar
iani
sm.Wi t
hinsuchat heory,ri
ghtsarer ul
esthegeneralobservanceof
whichwi l
ll
eadt oanoptimaldist
ributionofadv antages.I
nr ul
eutil
it
ari
anism,theoptimal
dist
ri
butionistheonethatcontainst hegreatestaggregateutil
it
y.
Themostcommonobj ect i
ontogr oundingrightsinsuchat heor yisthattheresul
tingr
ight
swi l
l
betoof l
imsy .Ifr
ightsarejustif
iedonlyinsofarast heygener ategoodconsequences, i
tmay
seem thatthet heorywillneedtopr uneitsri
ght s,perhapssev erel
y,whenevermaxi mum ut
il
ity
l
ieselsewher e.Whyi sitnotar uleinatwo- l
ev elsystem,forexampl e,t
hatoneshoul df
ramean
i
nnocentmani ft
hiswoul dpreventamaj orri
ot ?Whyshoul ditnotbear ul
ethatoneshould
“vi
olat
e”ther ightofani nnocentnott obekilledifthiswoul dpr eventthekil
li
ngsoft wo
i
nnocentsel sewher e?Whi l
estatus-basedr i
ght scanappeart obet oostrong,inst
rumental
rights
canappeart obet ooweak.( SeePet t
it1988f oracount er-argument .)

Weakri
ghtsareaproblem foruti
l
itar
iani
sm becauseit
sfocusonmaximi
zat
ionmakesit
i
ndif
fer
enttocert
ainfact
sabouthowut i
li
tyi
sdistri
but
edacrossi
ndi
vi
dual
s.However
,
ut
il
it
ari
ani
sm isnottheonlykindofinstr
umentaltheor
y.

Forexample,apur eegal i
tariantheorywillportrayr i
ghtsasi nstrumentsf orachievi
ngamor e
equaldi
stri
butionofadv ant ages.Apr i
orit
ariant heorywilldefineanopt imaldistri
buti
onina
mannersimilartoegalitarianism,exceptthatitwi llgi
v eextr
awei ghttotheinterestsoft
hose
worseoff.Otherinstr
ument al t
heori
eschar acterize“optimal distr
ibuti
on”inotherway s(Sumner
1987,171).I
nst r
ument al t
heor i
esthatdonotdef i
neanopt i
mal di
stri
buti
oni ntermsof
maximizati
onmayf acel esspr essur
et hanut i
l
itarianism doesf rom concernsaboutweakr i
ght
s
(Scanl
on1977) .

I
nst
rumentaltheori
esdiff
eroverhowt heydefi
newhatcount
sasanopt i
maldist
ri
bution
(
maximizat
ion,equali
ty,
etc.
).Theyalsodif
feri
nhowtheymeasureindi
vi
dualadvantage.For
i
nst
ance,autil
it
ari
an’smet r
ici
sutil
i
ty,Senworkswit
hamet ri
cofcapabi
li
ti
es,Dworkinwith
r
esour
ces,andsoon.

Whatev ermetri
ctheyuse, alli
nstr
ument altheori
stswillhavet oaddr esslongstandi ngquest i
ons
aboutthecommensur abil
ityandinter
personal comparisonofi nter
ests.Sinceinstrument al
theor
istswor kwithoveral
levaluati
onsofhowwel lof
findividualswoul dbewer ecer t
ainright
s
ascri
bed, t
heymustexpl ainhowdi sti
nctcategoriesofinterests( e.
g.,heal
th,income,
opportunit
iesforsel
f-
expression,socialrecognit
ion)tr
adeof fagainstoneanot her.Theymust
alsoexplai
nwhyt heybel i
evethattheseinterestsaresimilarenoughacr ossper sonst hatit
makessenset ousethesamescal esofmeasur ementf ordifferentpersons(Gr i
ffi
n1989) .

St
atust
heor
iesar
esubj
ectt
otheobj
ect
iont
hatt
heyl
ackt
heconcept
ual
resour
cest
oexpl
ain
whyt her ightswebel i
ev einar eintricately“ shaped”t oaccommodat et hepar ticularit
iesof
diff
erentcont extsanddi fferentright holder s.Instrumental t
heoriesar ev ulner ablet othemi rr
or-
i
mageobj ecti
on.Ani nstrument altheor i
stcanappeal toanynumberofdi stincti nterests, which
areatst akef oranynumberofdi fferent l
y -sit
uat edindiv
iduals,toexpl ainwhyacer tainright
shouldbehel donlybycer t
ainper sonsoronl yincer t
aincircumst ances.Thedangerf orsucha
theorististhattheweal thofnor mat iver esour cesathercommandwi ll permi tt heascr i
pt ionof
what everr i
ghtsshefav ors.Thet heor i
stbegi nswi thther i
ghtsthatshewant st ojustify
, then
givesa“ justso”storyi ntermsofanopt imal distri
buti
onofi nterestst hatl eadst oexact lyt hose
ri
ghts( Tushnet1984, Frey1985) .Mor eov eral linstr
ument al j
usti
ficati
onsr elyonempi r
ical
predicti
onsconcer ningwhi chascr iptionsofr ightswoul dpr oducewhi chconsequences, and
therewi l
l ty
pical
lybeenoughsl acki nt heseempi ri
calpredicti
onsf orinst rument altheoristst o
fudget heirderiv
ati
onsi nor dert oreacht hedesi r
edrights.

Bothstat
ust heori
esandi
nstr
ument al
theori
esofri
ghtshav
eheldaperenni
alatt
ract
ion.
Becauseofthis,manyhav
ebeent emptedtosearchforahybr
idappr
oachthatwouldcombi
ne
whatisplausibl
eineach(
e.g.
,Sen,1982).

6.
3Cont
ract
ual
andJust
if
icat
oryRi
ght
s

At hi
rdappr oacht ot hejust
ifi
cationofr i
ghtsmi ghtbecall
ed“ contr
act
ual.”Hereri
ghtsare
characteri
zednei therasnat urall
yf i
tt
ingforindependentbeingsnorast oolstopromotethe
beststateofaf fairs.Rather,ri
ghtsdef i
neprinci
plesthatwoul dbechosenbypr operl
ysit
uated
andmot i
vatedagent sagreeingt othebasictermsoft hei
rrelati
ons(e.
g.,pri
ncipl
eschosenin
Rawls’soriginalposi ti
on,orprincipl
eswi t
hinScanlon’scontr
act ual
i
sm thatnoonecould
reasonablyreject).Thef actthatthesepr i
ncipl
eswoul dbeagr eedtoundert hespeci
fi
ed
conditi
onsi stheirjustif
icat
ion.

Ther i
ghtsthatdef inef undament alpri
ncipl
eswithi
ntheset heori
esar ephrasedintermsofwhat
thetheori
es’ agentshav estrongreasont owant.So,forexample, Rawlsstatesthattheroleofa
cit
izen’
srightofper sonal propert
y“istoall
owasuf fi
cientmaterialbasisforasenseofper sonal
i
ndependenceandsel f-
respect,bothofwhichareessent i
alforthedev el
opmentandexer ci
seof
thetwomor al power s”(Rawl s1993,298).AndScanlonsay sthatreasonabl ei
ndivi
duals“have
reasontoinsi st…onbasi cr i
ghts,whichgivet
hem impor t
antformsofpr otect
ionandcont rol
overthei
rownl i
ves”( Scanlon2003, 4).

Forst(
2012,2014,2016)combi
nescrit
icalandcontr
actual
isttheoryi
ntoasophist
icat
ed
accountofr
ights.Begi
nni
ngwithastatus-basedf
undament al
r i
ghttoj
usti
fi
cat
ion,heshows
howsuitabl
yideali
zeddemandsforj
ustifi
cati
onfr
om indi
vi
dual ssubordi
nat
edwi t
hinreal
relati
onsofpowercangroundspeci
fi
cri
ghtstorel
ieff
rom andr
edr
essforact
ualinj
ust
ices.
For st
’sfr
ameworkshowstheenduri
ngtheor
eti
calappealandpr
act
ical
potent
ial
oftheKanti
an
tradit
ionofunder
standi
ngri
ght
s.

7.Cr
it
iquesofRi
ght
s

Crit
iquesofr i
ghtscomei ntwof orms.Thef ir
stisanattackonthesubst anceofdoct ri
nest hat
giverightsacent r
al pl
ace.Thesecr i
ti
quesal l
egethatthecontentofsuchdoct r
inesi s,i
none
wayorot her,
mal f
ormedorunj ust i
fi
ed.Her ewef i
nd,f
orexampl e,t
hecr i
ti
cism thatnat ural
ri
ghtsdoct ri
nesar e“somuchf latasser t
ion,
”orthatuti
li
tar
ianri
ghtstendt obei mpl ausibly
weak.Thesecondf orm ofcri
ti
queat tacksthelanguageofright
sitsel
f.Theobj ectionher eis
thatitisinappropri
ateorcounter pr
oduct i
vetoexpressatleastsomeki ndsofnor mat i
ve
concer nsintermsofr i
ghts.Weshoul d, accordi
ngtothesecondf orm ofcri
tique,reduceor
avoid“ ri
ghtstal
k.”

7.
1Cr
it
iquesofRi
ght
sDoct
ri
ne

Mar xattackedthesubst anceoft herev ol

uti
onaryei
ghteenthcent ur
yAmer i
canandFr ench
poli
ticaldocumentst hatpr ocl
aimedt hefundamental“r
ightsofman” :
libert
y,equali
ty,securi
ty,
proper t
y,andthefreeexer ciseofreli
gion.Marxobject
edt hattheseallegedr i
ghtsderivefr
om a
fal
seconcept ionofthehumani ndiv
idualasunrelat
edtoot her
s, ashav i
nginterest
scanbe
defi
nedwi t
houtref
erencet oothers,andasal wayspot
entiall
yinconf l
ictwithothers.Therights-
bearingindivi
duali
san“ i
sol at
edmonad…wi thdrawnbehindhispr iv
atei nt
erestsandwhi msand
separ at
edf r
om thecommuni t
y”(Mar x1844,146).

Therightofproperty
,Mar xasser
ted,exemplifi
estheisolati
ngandant i
-soci
alchar
acterofthese
all
egedright
sofman.Ont heonehand, ther
ightofpropertyistheri
ghttokeepothersata
dist
ance:thelegalequival
entofabarbedwi refence.Ont heotherhand,theri
ghtofpropert
y
all
owsanownert otransferhi
sresourcesathisownpl easureandf orhisowngain,without
regar
dev enforthedesper at
eneedfort hoseresourceselsewhere.

Similarly,Marxheldt hatthemuch- celebratedindivi

dualri
ghttolibert
yr einforcessel
fi
shness.
Thosewhoar eascr i
bedt her i
ghttodowhatt heywi shsolongast heydonothur tot
herswill
perpet uateacultureofegoi sticobsession.Asf orequalit
y,theachievementofequal ri
ght
sina
l
iberal statemerelydi str
actspeoplef rom noti
cingthattheirequali
tyi
spur elyformal
:asociety
withf ormal l
yequal r
ightswi ll
continuetobedi vi
dedbyhugei nequali
tiesi neconomicand
poli
ti
cal power.Final
ly ,t
heseso-called“natural”ri
ghtsareinfactnotnat uraltohumansatal l
.
Theyar esimplythedef i
ningelement softher ulesofthemoder nmodeofpr oducti
on,per
fectl
y
suit
edt ofiteachindiv i
dualintothecapital
istmachi ne.
Communi tarians( Tay l
or, Wal zer ,
MacI nt yre,Sandel )soundsev eraloft hesamet hemesi ntheir
cri
ticismsofcont empor ar yliberal andliber tariant heor i
es.Thecommuni t
ariansobj ectthat
humansar enot , assucht heor i
esassume, “ant ecedent lyi
ndiv i
duat ed.”Nozi ck’s“ stateof
natur e”t heor i
zing, forexampl e,errsinpr esumi ngt hati ndivi
dual soutsideofast able,state-
gov ernedsoci alor derwi l
l dev elopt heaut onomouscapaci ti
est hatmaket hem deser vi
ngof
ri
ght s.Norshoul dweat tempt ,asi nRawl s’sor iginal posit
ion,tobaseanar gumentf orri
ght son
whati ndiv i
dual swoul dchoosei nabst ract ionf rom t heirparti
cul arident i
ti
esandcommuni ty
attachment s.Ther eisnowayt oest ablishasubst ant i
vepolit
ical t
heor yonwhatal lrati
onal
agent swanti nt heabst r
act .Rat her ,t
heor istsshoul dl ookatt hepar t
icularsocial cont extsin
whi chr eal peopl el ivetheirl i
ves, andt ot hemeani ngst hatspeci ficgoodscar rywi thindifferent
cultures.Thi scommuni t
ar iancr it
iquecont i
nuesbyaccusi ngliber alandl i
bertariant heoriesof
beingf alselyuni ver sal
isti
c, ini nsisti
ngt hatal l soci etiesshoul dbendt hemsel vest of itwithina
standar d-sizedgr i
dofr ight s.Insof arasweshoul dadmi tri
ght si ntoourunder st andi ngoft he
wor ldatal l
, communi t
arianssay ,weshoul dseet hem aspar tofongoi ngpr acticesofsoci al sel
f
-i
nterpr etationandnegot iation—andsoasr ulest hatcanv arysi gnifi
cant l
ybet weencul tures.

Thesekindsofcr i
tici
smshav ebeendiscussedindetail
( e.
g.,Gutmann1985, Waldron1987b,
Mulhall
andSwi f
t1992).Thei rval
idi
tyt
urnsonwei ghtyissuesinmor al andpolit
icaltheory.
Whatcanbesai dhereisthatacommont hemeinmostoft hesecriti
cisms—t hatpromi nent
ri
ghtsdoctri
nesar einsomewayexcessi velyi
ndiv
iduali
st i
cor“atomistic”—neednotcutagai nst
anytheorymer el
ybecausei tusest hel
anguageofr i
ghts.Ignatief
f(2003, 67)err
s, f
orex ample,
whenhechar gesthat“r
ightslanguagecannotbepar sedort ransl
atedintoanoni ndividual
ist
ic,
communi tar
ianframewor k.Itpresumesmor ali
ndivi
dualism andisnonsensi caloutsidethat
assumption.
”

Aswesawabov e, t
hel anguageofr i
ghtsisabl etoaccommodat eri
ght holderswhoar e
i
ndividual
sassuch, butalsoindividualsconsi deredasmember sofgr oups, aswel lasgr oups
themselves,st
ates, peoples,andsoon.I ndeedt henon- i
ndivi
duali
sti
cpot ent i
al ofrights-
l
anguagei smor et hanaf ormal possibil
it
y.Thedoct ri
neofinter
nationalhumanr ights—t he
moder ncousinofei ghteenthcent urynaturalrightstheory—ascri
bessev eral signifi
cantr ight
sto
groups.TheinternationalConv entionagainstGenoci de,forexample,forbidsact i
onsi ntending
todestroyanynat ional,et
hnic,racialorrel
igiousgr oup;andbothoft hehumanr i
ght sCov enant
s
ascri
bet opeoplest her i
ghttoself-determination.Suchexampl esshowt hatt helanguageof
ri
ghtsisnotindividuali
sticinit
sessence.

7.
2Cr
it
iquesoft
heLanguageofRi
ght
s

Thel
anguageofr
ight
scanr
esi
stt
hechar
get
hati
tisnecessar
il
ycompl
i
citwi
thi
ndi
vi
dual
i
sm.
Howev
er,
cri
ti
cshav
eaccusedr
ight
stal
kofi
mpedi
ngsoci
alpr
ogr
ess:

Ourr i
ght stalk,i
nit
sabsolutenesspr omot esunreali
sticexpectati
ons,heightenssocial conf
lict
,
andi nhibit
sdi al
oguethatmightleadt owar dconsensus, accommodat ion,oratleastthe
discov eryofcommongr ound.Init
ssi lenceconcerningresponsibil
it
ies,i
tseemst ocondone
accept anceoft hebenefi
tsoflivi
nginademocr at
icsocial welf
arestate,wit
houtaccept i
ngthe
correspondi ngpersonalandcivi
cobl igati
ons….Initsinsulari
ty,i
tshutsoutpot ent
ial
lyimpor tant
aidst othepr ocessofself
-corr
ectingl ear
ning.All
oft heset r
ait
spromot emer eassertionover
reason- giv
ing.

Glendon( 1991, 14)heredrawsoutsomeoft hedet ri

mental practical consequencesoft he
connect i
onbet weenr i
ghtsandconcl usi
ver easonst hatwesawabov e.Sincer ightsassert
ions
suggestconcl usivereasons, peopl ecanbet emptedt oasser trightswhent heywantt oenda
discussioni nsteadofcont inuingi t.Onepl ay sar i
ghtasat rumpcar dwhenonehasr unoutof
argument s.Simi l
arl
y,t
her eadyav ailabil
it
yofr ightslanguagemayl eadpar tiesinit
ial
lyatodds
witheachot hert owardconf r
ont ationi nsteadofnegot i
ati
on, aseachsi deescal atesanar ms-
raceofr i
ght sasser ti
onsthatcanonl yber esol
v edbyasuper ioraut horit
ylikeacour t.Oneline
offemi nisttheor yhaspickedupont hisli
neofcr i
tici
sm, i
dent ifyi
ngt heper empt oryand
ri
gidif
yingdi scour seofri
ght swit ht heconf rontati
onal mascul ine“voice.”(Gi l
l
igan1993)

I
tisnoti nevi
tablethatt heseunfort
unat etendencieswill
affl
ictthosewhomakeuseoft he
l
anguageofr i
ghts.Aswehav eseen,itmaybepl ausi
bletoholdt hateachrightis“absolute”
onlywithinanelabor at
el ygerr
ymander edarea.Andi tmaybepossi bletoproducedeept heor
ies
tojust
if
ywhyonehast her i
ghtsthatoneasser ts.Howev er
,iti
spl ausibl
ethattheact ualuseof
ri
ghtstalkdoeshav ethepr opensit
iesthatGlendonsuggest s.Itseemsnoacci dentthat
Amer i
ca, “
thelandofr ights,
”isalsothel andoflit
igat
ion.

Anot herdel eteri

ousconsequenceofr i
ghtst alkt
hatGl endonpi cksouti sitstendencytomov e
themor alfocust owardper sonsasr i
ghtholders,i
nsteadoft owardper sonsasbear ersof
responsi bil
iti
es.Thi scrit
iquei sdevel
opedbyO’ Neil
l(1996, 127–53; 2002, 27–34).Afocuson
ri
ght holdersst eersmor al r
easoni ngt
owar dt heperspectiveofr eci
pience, i
nsteadoftowar dthe
traditi
onal activeethicalquest i
onsofwhatoneoughtt odoandhowoneoughtt oli
ve.Rights
talkalsol eadst hosewhousei ttoneglectimpor t
antv i
rtuessuchascour ageandbenef i
cence,
whi char edut i
est owhi chnor i
ghtscorr
espond.Fi nall
y,theuseofr i
ghtslanguageencour ages
peopl etomakei mpr acti
cal demands,sinceonecanasser tarightwi t
houtat t
endingtothe
desi r
abili
tyorev enthepossi bi
li
tyofburdeningotherswi ththecor r
espondi ngobligati
ons.
Crit
ici
smssuchasO’ Nei l
l’
sdonott ar
getthelanguageofr i
ghtsasawhol e.Theyaim squarel
y
atthepassi
ver i
ghts,andespeci al
l
yatcl ai
m-ri
ghts,i
nsteadofattheact ivepri
v i
l
egesand
powers.Nevert
heless,iti
sagai nplausibl
ethatthespreadofright
st alkhasencour agedthe
tendenci
esthatthesecr i
ti
cismssuggest .Themoder ndiscourseofrightsischaracteri
sti
call
y
deployedbythosewhoseet hemselvesorothersaspotential
reci
pients,entit
ledtoinsi
ston
certai
nbenefi
tsorprotections.

Describingfundament alnor msi nter

msofr ightshasbenef it
saswel lasdanger s( Schneider
1986, Ackerly2013) .Thel anguageofr ightscangi vepr eciseexpr essi
ont oel aboratestructures
offreedom andaut hor i
ty.Whenembodi edinpar t
iculardoct r
ines,suchasi ntheinternational
humanr ight
sdocument s,thelanguageofr i
ghtscanexpr essi naccessi bl
et ermst hestandar ds
formini mall
yaccept abl
et reatmentthati ndi
vidualscandemandf rom thosewi thpowerov er
them.Ri ghtsarealsoassoci atedwi t
hhi stor
icalmov ement sforgr eat
erl i
bertyandequal ity,
so
assertionsofrightsi npur suitofjust
icecancar ryar esonancet hatotherappeal slack.Whet her
thesebenef it
sofusi ngrightslanguageov er
balancet hehazar dsremai nsal ivequestionin
mor al
, poli
ti
cal,andl egaltheory.

Bi
bli
ogr
aphy

Acker
ly,
B.,2013,“
Femini
standActiv
istApproachestoHumanRi
ght
s,”inM.Goodhart(ed.
),
HumanRi ght
s:Poli
ti
csandPract
ice,Seconded.,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
versi
tyPr
ess,pp.28–43.

Andersson,
A-K.,2013,
“Choices,I
nter
ests,
andPot
ent
ial
i
ty:
WhatDi
sti
ngui
shesBear
ersof
Ri
ghts?”Journal
ofValueInquiry
,47:175–90.

Bent
ham,
J.,
1796,
Anar
chi
cal
Fal
l
aci
es,
inWal
dron1987a,
pp.46–76.

Br
ett
,A.
,1997,
Liber
ty,
Right
,andNat
ure,
Cambr
idge:
Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Campbel
l
,T.
,2006,
Right
s:ACr
it
ical
Int
roduct
ion,
London:
Rout
ledge.

Cornel
l
,N.,
2015,
“Wr
ongs,
Right
s,andThi
rdPar
ti
es,
”Phi
l
osophyandPubl
i
cAf
fai
rs,
43:
109–143.

Cruf
t,R.
,2004,
“WhyisitDi
srespect
ful
toVi
olat
eRi
ght
s?”Pr
oceedi
ngsoft
heAr
ist
otel
i
an
Soci
ety,
113:201–24.

–––,2010,
“Ont
heNon-
Inst
rument
alVal
ueofBasi
cRi
ght
s,”Jour
nal
ofMor
alPhi
l
osophy
,7:
441–61.

–––,
2019,
HumanRi
ght
s,Owner
shi
p,andt
heI
ndi
vi
dual
,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Dar
wal
l
,S.
,2006,
TheSecond-
Per
sonSt
andpoi
nt,
Cambr
idge:
Har
var
dUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.
–––,2012,“
Bipol
arObl
i
gat
ion,
”inR.Shaf
er-
Landau(
ed.
),Oxf
ordSt
udi
esi
nMet
aet
hics,
7:
333–357.

Donahue,
Jr.,
Char
les,
2010,“
Iusi
nRomanLaw,”i
nJ.Wit
te,Jr
.andF.Al
exander(eds.
),
Chri
sti
ani
tyandHumanRight
s,Cambr
idge:
Cambri
dgeUniv
ersi
tyPr
ess,pp.64–80.

Dwor
kin,
R.,
1984,
“Ri
ght
sasTr
umps,
”inWal
dron1984,
pp.153–67.

Edmundson,
W.,
2012,
AnI
ntr
oduct
iont
oRi
ght
s,Cambr
idge:
Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess,
2nd
edi
ti
on.

Enoch,
D.,
2002,
“ARi
ghtt
oVi
olat
eOne’
sDut
y,”LawandPhi
l
osophy
,21:
376–78.

Fei
nber
g,J.
,1970,
“TheNat
ureandVal
ueofRi
ght
s,”Jour
nal
ofVal
ueI
nqui
ry,
4:243–257.

–––,
1973,
Soci
alPhi
l
osophy
,Engl
ewoodCl
i
ffs,
NJ:
Prent
ice-
Hal
l
.

–––,
1980,
Right
s,Just
ice,
andt
heBoundsofLi
ber
ty,
Pri
ncet
on:
Pri
ncet
onUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Fi
nni
s,J.
,1980,
Nat
ural
LawandNat
ural
Right
,Oxf
ord:
Clar
endonPr
ess.

For
st,
R.,2012,TheRi
ghttoJust
if
icat
ion:
ElementsofaConst
ruct
ivi
stTheor
yofJust
ice,
J.
Fl
ynn(t
rans.)
,NewYork:Col
umbiaUniver
sit
yPress.

–––,
2014,Just
ice,
Democr
acyandt
heRi
ghtt
oJust
if
icat
ion:
Rai
nerFor
sti
nDi
alogue,
London:
Bl
oomsbur
y.

–––,2016,“
TheJusti
fi
cat
ionofBasi
cRi
ght
s:ADi
scour
se-
Theor
eti
cal
Appr
oach,
”Net
her
lands
Jour
nalofLegal
Phil
osophy,
45:7–28

Fr
eder
ick,
D.,
2014,
“Pr
o-Tant
oVer
susAbsol
uteRi
ght
s,”Phi
l
osophi
cal
For
um,
45:
275–94.

FreyR.
,1985,“
Act-Uti
li
tar
ianism,Consequenti
ali
sm,
andMor
alRi
ght
s,”i
nR.Fr
ey(
ed.
),Ut
il
it
y
andRight
s,Oxfor
d, Basi
lBlackwell
,pp.61–85.

Fr
ydr
ych,
D.,
2018,
“TheTheor
iesofRi
ght
sDebat
e,”Jur
ispr
udence,
9(3)
:566–588.

Gewi
rt
h,A.
,1981,
“Ar
eTher
eanyAbsol
uteRi
ght
s?”i
nWal
dron1984,
pp.81–109.

Gi
laber
t,P.
,2010,“
TheImpor
tanceofLi
nkageAr
gument
sfortheTheor
yandPr
act
iceofHuman
Ri
ghts:AResponsetoJamesNickel
,
”HumanRight
sQuart
erl
y,32:
425–38.

Gil
bert,
M. ,
2004,“ScanlononPromissor
yObl
i
gat
ion:
ThePr
obl
em ofPr
omi
sees’
Right
s,”The
JournalofPhi
losophy,101:83–109.

–––,2013,
Joi
ntCommi
tment
:HowWeMaket
heSoci
alWor
ld,
NewYor
k:Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
y
Pr
ess.

–––,
2018,
Right
sandDemands:
AFoundat
ional
Inqui
ry,
Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.
Gi
l
li
gan,
C.,
1993,
InaDi
ff
erentVoi
ce,
Cambr
idge:
Har
var
dUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Gl
endon,
M.,
1991,
Right
sTal
k:TheI
mpov
eri
shmentofPol
i
tical
Discour
se,
NewYor
k:Fr
ee
Pr
ess.

Gl
i
ck,
J.,
2010,
“Just
if
icat
ionandt
heRi
ghtt
oBel
i
eve,
”Phi
l
osophi
cal
Quar
ter
ly,
60:
532–44.

Gr
aham,
P.andN.Peder
sen(
eds.
),2012,
Epi
stemi
cEnt
it
lement
,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Gri
ff
in,J.
,1989,Wel
l
-Bei
ng:
ItsMeani
ng,
Measur
ement
,andMor
alI
mpor
tance,
Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ord
Uni
versit
yPress.

Gutmann,A.
,1985,
“Communi
tar
ianCr
it
icsofLi
ber
ali
sm,
”Phi
l
osophyandPubl
i
cAf
fai
rs,
14:
308–322.

Hal
pin,A.
,2017,“TheValueofHohf
eldi
anNeut
ral
i
tywhenTheor
isi
ngaboutLegal
Right
s,”i
n
McBride(
ed.)2017,pp.1–30.

Har
el,
A.,
2005,“Theor
iesofRi
ght
s,”i
nM.GoldingandW.Edmundson(
eds.
),Bl
ackwel
l
’sGui
de
t
othePhil
osophyofLawandLegalTheor
y,pp.191–206.

Har
t,H.
,1961,
TheConceptofLaw,
Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

–––,1982,Essay
sonBent
ham:
Studi
esi
nJur
ispr
udenceandPol
i
tical
Theor
y,Oxf
ord:
Cl
arendonPress.

Hay
war
d,T.
,2013,
“OnPr
eposi
ti
onal
Dut
ies,
”Et
hics,
123:
264–91.

Her
stei
n,O.
,2012,
“Def
endi
ngaRi
ghtt
oDoWr
ong,
”LawandPhi
l
osophy
,31:
343–65.

–––,
2013,
“ALegal
Rightt
oDoLegal
Wrong,
”Oxf
ordJour
nal
ofLegal
Studi
es,
34:
1–25.

Hohf
eld,
W.,
1919,
Fundament
alLegal
Concept
ions,
W.Cook(
ed.
),NewHav
en:
Yal
eUni
ver
sit
y
Pr
ess.

Hol
mes,
S.,
andC.Sunst
ein,
1999,
TheCost
sofRi
ght
s,NewYor
k:W.
W.Nor
ton.

I
gnat
ief
f,M.
,2003,
“HumanRight
s,Sover
eignt
y,andIntervent
ion,
”inN.Owen(ed.
),Human
Ri
ght
sandHumanWr ongs:
TheOxf or
dAmnest yLectures2001,Oxfor
d:Oxf
ordUniver
sit
yPr
ess.

I
vi
son,
D.,
2007,
Right
s,Mont
real
:McGi
l
l-Queen’
sUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

James,W.
,1897,
TheWi
l
ltoBeli
eve;
pageref
erencesi
nthet
extar
etoW.James,
TheWi
l
lto
Bel
iev
eandHumanImmort
ali
ty,
NewYork:
Dov er,
1956.

Jones,
P.,
1994,
Right
s,NewYor
k:St
.Mar
ti
n’
sPr
ess.

Kamm, F.,1992,“
Non-Consequent
ial
ism,t
hePer sonasanEnd-
in-
It
sel
f,andt
heSi
gni
fi
canceof
Stat
us”
, Phil
osophyandPublicAff
air
s,21:354–89.
–––,2002,“
Right
s,”i
nJ.Col emanandS.Shapi
ro(eds.
),TheOxfor
dHandbookof
Jur
ispr
udenceandPhilosophyofLaw,Oxf
ord:Oxf
ordUniversi
tyPr
ess,
pp.486–513.

–––,
2007,
Int
ri
cat
eEt
hics,
Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Kramer,
M.,2001,“Gett
ingRight
sRi
ght
”,i
nM.Kr
amer(
ed.
),Ri
ght
s,Wr
ongs,
andResponsi
bil
i
ties,
London:Macmil
lan,pp.28–95.

–––,
2013,
“SomeDoubt
saboutAl
ter
nat
ivest
otheI
nter
estTheor
y,”Et
hics,
123:
245–63.

–––,
2017,“
InDefenceoftheI
nter
estTheor
yofRi
ght
-Hol
ding:
Rej
oinder
stoLei
fWenaron
Ri
ght
s,”i
nMcBri
de( ed.
)2017,
pp.49–84.

Kr
amer,M.
,N.Si
mmonds,
andH.St
einer
,1998,
ADebat
eOv
erRi
ght
s,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
y
Pr
ess.

Kramer,
M.,andH.St
einer
,2007,
“Theor
iesofRi
ght
s:I
sTher
eaThi
rdWay
?”Oxf
ordJour
nal
of
LegalSt
udi
es,27:
281–310.

Kurki
,V.,
2018,“
Rights,Harming,
andWrongi
ng:
ARest
atementoft
heI
nter
estTheor
y,”Ox
for
d
Journal
ofLegalStudies,
38:430–50.

Li
berto,
H.,2014,
“TheMor
alSpeci
fi
cat
ionofRi
ght
s:ARest
ri
ctedAccount
,”LawandPhi
l
osophy
,
33:175–206.

Li
sska,A.andB.Tierney,2015,“
Phi
losophyofLawi
ntheLat
erMi
ddleAges,
”inF.Mi
ll
erandC.-
A.Biondi
(eds.)
,AHistoryofthePhil
osophyofLawf
rom t
heAnci
entGr
eekstotheSchol
ast
ics,
secondedit
ion,Dor
drecht:Spri
nger
,pp.311–33.

Louden,R.
,1983,“
Right
sInf
atuat
ionandt
heI
mpov
eri
shmentofMor
alTheor
y,”Jour
nal
ofVal
ue
Inqui
ry,
17:87–102.

Ly
ons,
D.,
1970,
“TheCor
rel
ati
vi
tyofRi
ght
sandDut
ies,
”Noûs,
4:45–57.

–––,
1994,
Right
s,Wel
far
eandMi
l
l’
sMor
alTheor
y,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

MacCormick,
N.,
1977,
“Ri
ghtsi
nLegisl
ati
on”,
inP.HackerandJ.Raz,(
eds.)
,Law,Mor al
i
tyand
Soci
ety
:Essaysi
nHonourofH.
L.AHart
,Oxfor
d:Oxfor
dUniversi
tyPr
ess,1977,pp.189–209.

–––,
1982,
Legal
RightandSoci
alDemocr
acy
,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Macki
e,J.
,1979,
“CanTher
ebeaRi
ght
s-BasedMor
alTheor
y?”i
nWal
dron1984,
pp.168–81.

Mar
ti
n,R.
,1993,
ASy
stem ofRi
ght
s,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

–––,
1985,
Rawl
sandRi
ght
s,Lawr
ence,
Kansas:
Uni
ver
sit
yPr
essofKansas.

Marx,K.,
1844,“OntheJewi
shQuest
ion”
;pager
efer
encei
nthet
exti
stot
her
epr
inti
nWal
dron
1987a,pp.137–50.
May
,S.
,2012,
“Mor
alSt
atusandt
heDi
rect
ionofDut
ies,
”Et
hics,
123:
113–28.

–––,
2015,
“Di
rect
edDut
ies,
”Phi
l
osophyCompass,
10:
523–32.

McBr
ide,
M.(
ed.
),2017,
NewEssay
sont
heNat
ureofRi
ght
s,London:
Bloomsbur
y.

Mi
ll
,J.
,1859,OnLi
bert
y;pagerefer
encei
nthet
exti
stot
herepri
ntinJ.Mill
,OnLi
ber
tyand
Ot
herEssays,
S.Col
li
ni(ed.
),Cambri
dge:
Cambri
dgeUni
ver
sit
yPress,1989.

–––,1861,Uti
l
itar
iani
sm;pagereferencei
nthet
exti
stot
her
epr
inti
nJ.Mi
l
l,Ut
il
it
ari
ani
sm,
G.
Sher(
ed.)
,Indi
anapoli
s:Hacket
t,2002.

Mont
ague,
P.,
2015,
“Speci
fi
cat
ionandMor
alRi
ght
s,”LawandPhi
l
osophy
,34:
241–56.

Mul
hal
l
,S.
,andSwi
ft
,A.
,1992,
Liber
alsandCommuni
tar
ians,
Oxf
ord:
Blackwel
l
.

Mull
ins,
R.,
for
thcomi
ng,“MoralConfl
i
ctandtheLogi
cofRight
s,”Phi
l
osophi
cal
Studi
es,
fir
st
onl
i
ne14Nov ember2018.doi
.org/
10.1007/
s11098-
018-
1197-
1

Nagel
,T.
,2002,
Conceal
mentandExposur
e,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Nar
veson,
J.,
2001,
TheLi
ber
tar
ianI
dea,
Pet
erbor
ough,
Ont
ari
o:Br
oadv
iew.

Ni
ckel
,J.
,2008,“Ret
hinki
ngIndi
vi
sibi
li
ty:
Towar
dsaTheoryofSuppor
ti
ngRel
ati
onsbet
ween
HumanRight
s,”HumanRi ght
sQuarter
ly30:
984–1001.

–––,2010,
“Indi
vi
sibi
l
ityandLi
nkageAr
gument
s:ARepl
ytoGi
l
aber
t,
”,HumanRi
ght
sQuar
ter
ly,
32:
439–46.

–––,
2016,“
CanaRi
ghttoHealt
hCarebeJust
if
iedbyLi
nkageAr
gument
s?”Theor
eti
cal
Medi
ci
neandBi
oet
hics,
37:293–306.

Oberdi
ek,
J.,
2008“
Speci
fyi
ngRi
ght
sOutofNecessi
ty,
”Oxf
ordJour
nal
ofLegal
Studi
es,
28:
127–46.

O’
Neil
l
,O.,1996,
TowardJusti
ceandVirt
ue:
AConst
ruct
iveAccountofPr
act
ical
Reasoni
ng,
Cambri
dge:Cambri
dgeUniver
sit
yPress.

–––,
2002,
AQuest
ionofTr
ust
,Cambr
idge:
Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Osi
el,
M., 2019,TheRi
ghtt
oDoWr
ong:
Mor
ali
tyandt
heLi
mit
sofLaw,
Cambr
idge,
MA:
Har
var
d
Uni
versi
tyPress.

Ot
suka,
M.,
2003,
Liber
tar
iani
sm Wi
thoutI
nequal
i
ty,
Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Pal
li
kkat
hayi
l,
J.,
2016,“
Revisi
ti
ngt
heInt
erestTheor
yofRight
s:Di
scussi
onofTheMor
ali
tyof
Fr
eedom,”Jer
usal
em Revi
ewofLegal
Studies,
14:147–57.

Pet
ti
t,P.
,1988,
“TheConsequent
ial
i
stcanRecogni
zeRi
ght
s,”Phi
l
osophi
cal
Quar
ter
ly,
38:
42–55.
Pl
amenat
z,J.
,1938,
Consent
,Fr
eedom,
andPol
i
tical
Obl
i
gat
ion,
Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Qui
nn,
W.,
1993,
Mor
ali
tyandAct
ion,
Cambr
idge,
Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Quong,J.andR.St
one,2015,
“RulesandRight
s,”i
nD.Sobel
,P.Val
l
entyne,andS.Wal
l(eds.
),
Oxfor
dSt udi
esi
nPoli
ti
calPhi
losophy(Vol
ume1) ,
Oxf
ord:Oxf
ordUniv
ersit
yPress.

Rai
nbol
t,G.
,2006,
TheConceptofRi
ght
s,Dor
drecht
:Spr
inger
.

Rawl
s,J.
,1971,
ATheor
yofJust
ice,
Cambr
idge:
Har
var
dUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Raz
,J.
,1975,
Pract
ical
ReasonandNor
ms,
London:
Hut
chi
nson.

–––,
1986,
TheMor
ali
tyofFr
eedom,
Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

–––,
1995,
Ethi
csi
nthePubl
i
cDomai
n,(
Rev
isedEdi
ti
on)
,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Sandel
,M.
,1982,
Liber
ali
sm andt
heLi
mit
sofJust
ice,
Cambr
idge:
Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Scanl
on,
T.,
1977,
“Ri
ght
s,Goal
s,andFai
rness,
”inWal
dron1984,
pp.137–52.

–––,
2003,
TheDi
ff
icul
tyofTol
erance,
Cambr
idge:
Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

–––,
2013,
“Repl
ytoLei
fWenar
”,Jour
nal
ofMor
alPhi
l
osophy
,10:
400–05.

Schaab,J.
,2018,“WhyisitDi
srespect
fult
oViol
ateRi
ght
s:Cont
ract
ual
i
sm andt
heKi
nd-
Desi
re
Theory,
”Phil
osophical
Studi
es,175:97–116.

Schauer
,F.
,1984,
“CanRi
ght
sBeAbused?
”Phi
l
osophi
cal
Quar
ter
ly,
31:
225–30.

Schnei
der
,E.
,1986,
“TheDial
ecti
cofRi
ght
sandPoli
ti
cs:
Perspect
ivesf
rom t
heWomen’
s
Movement,
”NewYorkUniv
ersit
yLawRevi
ew,14:
589–652.

Sen,
A.,
1982,
“Ri
ght
sandAgency
,”Phi
l
osophyandPubl
i
cAf
fai
rs,
11:
3–39.

Sen,
A.,
1999,
Dev
elopmentasFr
eedom,
Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Shaf
er-
Landau,
R.,
1995,
“Speci
fyi
ngAbsol
uteRi
ght
s,”Ar
izonaLawRev
iew,
37:
209–24.

Shapi
ro,I.
,1986,
TheEvol
uti
onofRight
sinLi
ber
alTheor
y:AnEssayi
nCr
it
ical
Theor
y,
Cambridge:Cambri
dgeUni
versi
tyPr
ess.

Shue,H.,
1996,Basi
cRight
s:Subsi
stence,
Aff
luence,
andU.
S.For
eignPol
i
cy,
Pri
ncet
on:
Pri
ncetonUni
versi
tyPr
ess.

Si
edent
op,
L.,
2014,
Inv
ent
ingt
heI
ndi
vi
dual
,Cambr
idge:
Har
var
dUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Si
nnot
t-
Armst
rong,
W. ,
1996,“
Moral
Di l
emmasandRights”
,inH.E.Mason(ed.
),Mor
al
Di
lemmasandMoralTheor
y,NewYork:Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr ess,
pp.48–65.
Skor
upski
,J.
,2010,
TheDomai
nofReasons,
Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Sreeni
vasan,
G.,
2005,
“AHy
bri
dTheor
yofCl
aim-
Right
s,”Oxf
ordJour
nal
ofLegal
Studi
es25:
257–74.

–––,
2010,
“Dut
iesandThei
rDi
rect
ion,
”Et
hics,
120(
3):
465–494.

St
einer
,H.
,1994,
AnEssayonRi
ght
s,Oxf
ord,
Blackwel
l
.

–––,
2013,
“Di
rect
edDut
iesandI
nal
i
enabl
eRi
ght
s,”Et
hics,
123:
230–44.

Sumner
,L.
,1987,
TheMor
alFoundat
ionsofRi
ght
s,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Tay
lor
,C.,1979,
“At
omi
sm,”i
nA.Kont
os(
ed.
),Power
s,Possessi
ons,
andFr
eedom,
Tor
ont
o:
Uni
ver
sit
yofToront
oPr
ess.

Thompson,M.,2004,“
WhatisIttoWr ongSomeone?APuzzleAboutJust
ice,
”inR.
J.Wall
ace,
P.
Pett
it
,S.,
Schef
fler
,andM.Smi t
h( eds.
),ReasonandVal
ue:
Themesf r
om theMoralPhi
l
osophy
ofJosephRaz,
Oxf or
d:Cl
arendon.

Thomson,
J.,
1990,
TheReal
m ofRi
ght
s,Cambr
idge:
Har
var
dUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Ti
erney
,B.
,1997,
TheI
deaofNat
ural
Right
s,At
lant
a:Schol
arsPr
ess.

Tushnet
,M.
,1984,
“AnEssayonRi
ght
s,”TexasLawRev
iew,
62:
1363–1403.

Val
lenty
ne,P.
,andH.St
einer(
eds.
),2000,
Lef
tLi
ber
tar
iani
sm andi
tsCr
it
ics:
TheCont
empor
ary
Debate,NewYork:
Pal
graveMacmil
lan.

VanDuf
fel
,S.
,2012a,
“InDef
enseoft
heWi
l
lTheor
yofRi
ght
s,”ResPubl
i
ca,
18:
231–31.

–––,2012b,
“TheNat
ureofRi
ght
sDebat
eRest
sonaMi
stake,
”Phi
l
osophi
cal
Quar
ter
ly,
93:
104–23.

Wal
dron,
J.(
ed.
),1984,
Theor
iesofRi
ght
s,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

–––,(ed.
),1987a,
NonsenseUponSt
il
ts:
Bent
ham,
Bur
ke,
andMar
xont
heRi
ght
sofMan,
London:Methuen.

–––,
1987b,
“NonsenseUponSt
il
ts?
—ARepl
y,
”inWal
dron1987a,
pp.151–209.

–––,1993,
Liber
alRi
ght
s:Col
l
ect
edPaper
s1981–1991,
Cambr
idge:
Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
y
Pr
ess.

Wal
en,A.,2019,TheMechani
csofCl
aimsandPer
missi
bleKi
l
li
ngi
nWar
,NewYor
k:Oxf
ord
Uni
ver
sit
yPr ess.

Wel
l
man,
C.,
1985,
ATheor
yofRi
ght
s,Tot
owa,
NJ:
Rowman&Al
l
anhel
d.

–––,
1995,
Real
Right
s,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.
–––,
1997,
AnAppr
oacht
oRi
ght
s,Dor
drecht
:Kl
uwer
.

Wel
l
man,
C.H.
,2017,
Right
s,For
fei
tur
e,andPuni
shment
,Oxf
ord:
Oxf
ordUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Wenar
,L.
,2003,
“Legal
Right
sandEpi
stemi
cRi
ght
s,”Anal
ysi
s,63:
142–46.

–––,
2005,
“TheNat
ureofRi
ght
s,”Phi
l
osophyandPubl
i
cAf
fai
rs,
33:
223–53.

–––,2008,“TheAnaly
sisofRight
s,”i
nM.Kramer,
C.Grant,B.Col
burn,
andA.Hatzi
stav
rou
(eds.
),TheLegacyofH.L.A.Hart
,Oxfor
d:Oxf
ordUni
versi
tyPress,
pp.251–73.

–––,
2013a,
“Ri
ght
sandWhatWeOwet
oEachOt
her
,”Jour
nal
ofMor
alPhi
l
osophy
,10:
375–99.

–––,
2013b,
“TheNat
ureofCl
aim-
Right
s,”Et
hics,
123:
202–29.

Whel
an,D.
,2010,
Indi
vi
sibl
eHumanRi
ght
s:AHi
stor
y,Phi
l
adel
phi
a:Uni
ver
sit
yofPennsy
lvani
a
Pr
ess.

Wil
l
iams, G.
,1968,“
TheConceptofaLegalLi
ber
ty”
,inR.Summer
s(ed.
),Essay
sinLegal
Phi
losophy,
Oxford:Bl
ackwel
l
,pp.121–44.

Academi
cTool
s

sepmani
con Howt
oci
tet
hisent
ry.

sepmani
con Pr
evi
ewt
hePDFv
ersi
onoft
hisent
ryatt
heFr
iendsoft
heSEPSoci
ety
.

i
nphoicon Lookupt opicsandt
hinker
srel
atedt
othi
sent
ryatt
heI
nter
netPhi
l
osophy
Ont
ologyPr
oject(
InPhO).

phi
lpaper
sicon Enhancedbi
bli
ogr
aphyf
ort
hisent
ryatPhi
l
Paper
s,wi
thl
i
nkst
oit
s
dat
abase.

Ot
herI
nter
netResour
ces

Al
tschul
,J.
,2010,
“Epi
stemi
cEnt
it
lement
,”ent
ryi
ntheI
nter
netEncy
clopedi
aofPhi
l
osophy
.

Myhr
vol
d-Hanssen,T.
,2003,
“Democracy,NewsMedia,andFaminePrev
ent
ion:
Amar
tyaSen
andt
heBiharFamineof1966–67,
”publi
shedatdi
sasterdi
plomacy
.or
g.

Rel
atedEnt
ri
es

communitar
iani
sm |consequenti
ali
sm |l
egalri
ght
s|li
beral
i
sm | l
iber
tari
ani
sm |Locke,John|
proper
tyandownershi
p| reasonsforact
ion:
agent
-neut
ralvs.agent-
rel
ati
ve|r
ights:human

Copy
right©2020by

Lei
fWenar<l
wenar
@st
anf
ord.
edu>
Openaccesst
otheSEPi
smadepossi
blebyawor
ld-
widef
undi
ngi
nit
iat
ive.

Pl
easeReadHowYouCanHel
pKeept
heEncy
clopedi
aFr
ee

Br
owse

Tabl
eofCont
ent
s

What
'sNew

Random Ent
ry

Chr
onol
ogi
cal

Ar
chi
ves

About

Edi
tor
ial
Inf
ormat
ion

Aboutt
heSEP

Edi
tor
ial
Boar
d

Howt
oCi
tet
heSEP

Speci
alChar
act
ers

Adv
ancedTool
s

Cont
act

Suppor
tSEP

Suppor
ttheSEP

PDFsf
orSEPFr
iends

MakeaDonat
ion

SEPI
AforLi
brar
ies

Mi
rr
orSi
tes
Vi
ewt
hissi
tef
rom anot
herser
ver
:

USA(
Mai
nSi
te)

Phi
l
osophy
,St
anf
ordUni
ver
sit
y

TheStanf
ordEncy
clopedi
aofPhil
osophyiscopy
right©2021byTheMet
aphy
sicsResear
chLab,
Depar
tmentofPhi
losophy
,St
anfordUniv
ersi
ty

Li
brar
yofCongr
essCat
alogDat
a:I
SSN1095-
5054