dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/26/83)
People who talk about rights should provide an analysis of what it means for
a person to have a right. Before I or anyone else can criticize what you
say about rights, we need to know what "rights" are. I speak especially to
jrrt@hogpd, and Tom Craver. Here are some of my own analyses of what people
commonly mean by claims about rights. I don't care which, if any, analysis
of rights is "THE correct one." I seek only clarity.
A1 There are five necessary and sufficient conditions of having a right.
--There is someone or some group which has the right.
--There is someone or some group against which the right holds. For
example, the right to life is usually supposed to hold against
everyone, while a right to something which is promised holds only
against the promiser.
--There is some basis on which the right-holder(s) have the right.
--There is something which the right-holder(s) have a right TO.
--Those against whom the right holds OUGHT to allow the right-holder(s)
the object of the right. If the right is a "positive" right, the
former OUGHT to PROVIDE the right-holder(s) with the object of the
right.
A2 Same as analysis A1, except that the object of the right must be
something CONCRETE (as opposed to, for example, having one's welfare
added in with that of others (utilitarianism)).
A3 Same as A1, except that one may have a right to X even if it is
not ALWAYS the case that others ought to let her have X. The only
condition is that others ought to take her right to X as having SOME
weight, in their decisions. (Under A1, rights are absolute -- if I
have a right against you to X, then you ought to allow me X no matter
what the consequences are of doing so. Under A3, the consequences may
have an importance which over-rides the right, yet I still have the
right.)
A4 Same as A1, except that instead of being a normative concept -- about
what people OUGHT to do -- rights are a descriptive concept -- about
what people DO do, or (A5) about what people in a given society THINK
people ought to do. (Under A4 and A5, whether people have a certain
right is a sociological question, rather than a moral philosophy
question. Under A4 and A5, it makes sense to say "I OUGHT to HAVE a
right to X"; whereas under A1-A3, it does not -- it only makes sense
to say "My right to X ought to be RESPECTED".)
Feel free to modify any of A1-A4, or to take another approach to the
analysis of rights altogether.
--Paul Torek, U of MD College Park