right

theory
 rights
Rights are safeguards that protect the interests of the rights-bearer. If
someone has a negative right, others are forbidden to treat them in a
certain way. According to rights theories, rights are an especially
strong kind of protection, because they cannot be overridden even if it
would procure a greater benefit for others (unless that benefit is
granted by another right). For example, rights theories typically
prescribe that we have a right not to be killed, and this right cannot be
overridden even for some greater good, such as saving the lives of
other people. Rights theories need to specify which beings have rights,
what rights, and why
 Rights can be negative or positive. The rights to life and safety from physical
harm are examples of negative rights, because infringing upon these rights
involves bringing harm to the rights-bearer. Positive rights are a binding moral
claim to receive certain treatment from others. The right to education and
the right to vote are examples.

It is sometimes claimed that only human beings should have rights. Below we
will argue that this is a speciesist position, and that all sentient beings,
including nonhuman animals used by humans and in the wild should have
both negative and positive rights too, if humans have them.
 Types of rights
theories
Types of rights theories Theories of rights can be realist or constructivist.
According to realist views, rights holders have rights as one of their intrinsic
features. We have to recognize and respect those rights, or struggle for them to be
respected. According to constructivist views, the best theory regarding how to
behave towards beings who are morally considerable is to grant them rights and to
respect those rights or to struggle for them to be respected. Constructivist theory
does not accept that rights holders have rights as something intrinsic. Rather, it
claims that individuals choose to grant them to each other. It defends this as a good
thing to do
 Deontological Theories
a category of normative
ethical theories that
encompasses any theory which Consequentialist Theories
is primarily concerned with a theory of normative ethics
adherence to certain rules or that states that the moral value
duties. of an action or decision should
be judged based on its
consequences.

Anthropocentric Theories
the idea that the human experience is
the center from which to structure
and organize the world.
 Kant’s theory
of rights
Kant’s theory focused much more on duties than on rights.
However, since these duties are absolute, and involve treating
each rational person as an end in themselves and never merely as a
means to an end, it makes sense to categorize him as a rights
theorist.
 Kant believed that morality is based on a universally binding
principle of rationality called the categorical imperative. He
characterized the categorical imperative as a rational principle that
we must always follow regardless of our contrary inclinations, and it
is from this general rational requirement that all moral duties are
derived. Unlike Hobbes, who also based morality on rational
requirements, Kant’s conception of rationality wasn’t simply in the
service of self-interest. For him, the just treatment of other beings
who can understand and fulfill obligations also came under the
scope of rationality.
first and second formulations
 First
formulation
The first can be interpreted as it is only right to do something if
we would want everyone else to do it too. This is expressed
formally as we should only act in such a way that we could
rationally want the maxim (or principle) behind our action to
be a universal law.
 second
formulation
The second formulation instructs us to treat all human beings
as ends in themselves and never as a mere means to an end (the
extreme case is slavery). This means that we should always
respect other human beings and never use them as mere tools
to further our own interests.
Kant believed that our treatment of nonhuman animals doesn’t fall under
the categorical imperative, so we cannot have direct duties to them. In
other words, animals do not have rights. This is because he thought that
rationality was a necessary condition to be morally considerable, and he
thought that nonhuman animals weren’t rational. Despite this, he
maintained it is wrong to be cruel to animals. His justification was that
one develops a cruel character by being mean to nonhuman animals,
potentially resulting in the mistreatment of human beings. Therefore our
“duties” to animals are actually indirect duties to humans.
Contemporary
Kantian rights
theories
Contemporary Kantians such as Christine Korsgaard and Julian Franklin
have defended Kant’s general approach. However, they have rejected his
conclusion that it should be applied exclusively to humans
Franklin argues that Kant misunderstood his own theory by confusing the
subjects of the categorical imperative
Korsgaard does not think that this rationality is what makes humans
morally considerable
Arguments against
animals as rights
holders
 ne argument against the possession of rights by nonhuman animals claims that only
those who can respect the rights of others can enjoy rights themselves. There are
general responses against this argument. But more specifically, it is inconsistent to
apply this only to nonhuman animals, because this isn’t applied in the real world in
the case of humans. There are human beings who aren’t capable of respecting the
rights of others (such as babies), yet they are granted rights. And in fact, the theories
of rights that are most commonly accepted nowadays don’t use the above argument,
but try to justify why someone should have rights based on the interests those human
beings have.

Another argument against rights for nonhumans tries to show that the rights of most
nonhuman animals could not possibly be respected and claims that, therefore,
nonhuman animals shouldn’t have any rights. The argument is based on the fact that
because nonhuman animals living in nature often harm each other, enforcing one
animal’s rights would entail violating the rights of the other.
Thank
You