Rights: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:49, 25 March 2009

Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions. Rights are of vital importance in theories of justice and deontological ethics.

Theoretical distinctions

There are numerous different theoretical distinctions in accordance with which rights may be classified. Not all sources support both sides of every distinction listed here, e.g. Jeremy Bentham denied the existence of natural rights, holding all rights to be of a legal character, and Ayn Rand denied the existence of group rights, holding all rights to be of an individual character.

Natural rights and legal rights - There exists debate over the source of what many consider basic rights, such as the right to freedom of speech. On the one hand, these basic rights may be considered of a purely moral or ethical character, i.e., the idea of natural rights, which holds that certain rights derive from nature and cannot be modified by legislative authority. On the other hand, these basic rights may be considered to be of a purely posited nature, i.e., the idea of legal rights, which are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and subject to change. Other rights, such as that to access a lawyer or an abortion, avoid the question of this dichotomy by finding their validity pursuant to other, more basic rights, such as the right to due process in the case of the former, and the right to privacy in the later.
- Explicit rights and unenumerated rights - Explicit rights are those legal rights specifically granted by a governing body. Unenumerated rights are those legal rights that are not explicitly granted by the governing body. Considerable discussion and disagreement has occurred over unenumerated rights (what these rights include, what types of rights they are, and others).^{[citation needed]}
Claim rights and liberty rights - A liberty right grants permission, e.g. freedom of speech, whereas a claim right grants an entitlement, e.g. the right to life. Claim rights and liberty rights might be thought of as necessarily imposing constraints or obligations on the other. On the one hand, claim rights restrict other agents' liberty rights to affect the object of the claim. For instance, a claim right to a trial by jury constrains a ruler's liberty right to unilaterally jail whomever he sees fit. On the other hand, a liberty right constrains (but does not totally preclude) the exercise of claim rights on all necessary conditions for the exercise of that liberty. Examples of this are difficult to establish because of the difficulty of establishing necessary conditions for exercising a particular liberty right. One possible modern example might be a liberty right to freedom of movement, which restricts the claim rights one might exercise over the roads (as a necessary condition for freedom of movement). It should also be noted that liberty rights, as permissions, are also known simply as liberties, but are still frequently referred to as rights (e.g. "I have a right to do x" often means "I am permitted to do x"), though some deny that such usage is proper.
Negative rights and positive rights - Negative rights require inaction from others (in the sense of rights as claims or entitlements), or permit inaction from the right bearer (in the sense of rights as liberties or permissions). Conversely, positive rights require action from others (in the sense of rights as claims or entitlements) or permit action from the right bearer (in the sense of rights as liberties or permissions).
Individual rights and group rights - Individual rights are rights pertaining to individuals, regardless of their membership within a group. Group rights, in contrast are held by an ensemble of people collectively, or by the members of a group of people who have a certain characteristic in common. In some cases there can be tension between individual and group rights. A classic instance in which group and individual rights clash is conflicts between unions and their members. For example, members of a union may wish to contract with the employer for a wage other than that negotiated by the union, but are unable to due to the union's control of the work sphere, sometimes referred to as a "closed shop."
Absolute rights and conditional rights - Absolute rights are those rights applied without contingencies. Conditional rights are granted only after meeting certain requirments. The ability to carry weapons might be a conditional right; the right to subsistence provisions might be an absolute right.^{[citation needed]}

Other distinctions between rights draw more on historical association or family resemblance than on precise philosophical distinctions. These include the distinction between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, between which the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are often divided. Another conception of rights groups them into three generations. These distinctions have much overlap with that between negative and positive rights, as well as between individual rights and group rights, but these groupings are not entirely coextensive.

Areas of concern

Rights about particular issues, or the rights of particular groups, are often areas of special concern. Often these concerns arise when rights come into conflicts with other legal or moral issues, sometimes even other rights.

Issues of concern include labor rights, LGBT rights, reproductive rights, disability rights, patient rights and prisoners' rights.

With increasing monitoring and the information society, information rights, such as the right to privacy are becoming more important.

Examples of groups whose rights are of particular concern include animals, and amongst humans, groups such as children and youth, parents (both mothers and fathers), and men and women.

History of rights and historic documents

The specific enumeration of rights accorded to people has historically differed greatly across space and time, and in many cases, the system of rights promulgated by one group can come into sharp and bitter conflict that of other groups. In the political sphere, a place in which rights have historically been an important issue, at present the question of who has what legal rights is normally addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations.

Most historical notions of rights were authoritarian and hierarchical, with different people being granted different rights, and some having more rights than others. For instance, the rights of a father to be respected by his son did not indicate a duty upon the father to return that respect, and the divine right of kings to hold absolute power over their subjects did not leave room for many rights to be granted to the subjects themselves.

Modern conceptions of rights often emphasize liberty as among the most important of rights, though conceptions of liberty (e.g. positive vs negative) frequently differ.

The Magna Carta (1215; England) required the King of England to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law.
The Bill of Rights (1689; England) declared that Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possess certain civil and political rights; the Claim of Right (1689; Scotland) was similar but distinct.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789; France) was one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution, defining a set of individual rights and collective rights of the people.
The United States Bill of Rights (1789/1791; United States), the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, was another influential document.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is an over-arching set of standards by which governments, organisations and individuals would measure their behaviour towards each other. The preamble declares that the "...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."
The European Convention on Human Rights (1950; Europe) was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) is a follow-up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concerning civil and political rights.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) is another follow-up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concerning economic, social and cultural rights.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982; Canada) was created to protect the rights of Canadian citizens from actions and policies of all levels of government.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) is one of the most recent legal instruments concerning human rights.

Notable people

Lists

Individuals

References

External links

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, article by Leif Wenar.
WikiEd - Teacher's Rights
International Freedom of Expression Exchange
Comparative Analysis of Human Rights

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 {{Rights}}
-'''Rights''' are [[entitlement]]s or [[permission]]s that stem from a particular value system.  By far, two of the most common value systems from which rights are recognized are morality and law, e.g. legal rights and moral rights. Thus, rights are of vital importance in theories of [[justice]] and [[morality]] generally, and [[deontology|deontological ethics]] specifically.  However, rights may spring from other sources that have, at best, tangential relationships with either law or morality.
+'''Rights''' are legal or moral [[entitlement]]s or [[permission]]s. Rights are of vital importance in theories of [[justice]] and  [[deontology|deontological ethics]].
-Modern conceptions of rights often emphasize [[liberty]] as among the most important of rights, though conceptions of liberty (e.g. [[positive liberty|positive]] vs [[negative liberty|negative]]) frequently differ.
-==Non-legal or moral rights==
-It should be noted that while legal and moral rights are, by far, the most common, the idea of a "right" accepts of more concepts than just these.  And, persuant to that fact, in cases where a statment of right may be ambigous, one must always state what kind of right is being discussed, i.e., what system of values has granted that right.
-Indeed, a right is an entitlement or permission granted from '''any''' system of values or rules.  For instance, in some households, the oldest male has a right to sit at the head of the table, the value system in that example obviously being that house's rules of ettiquite.  Though the male has no legal or moral right to the seat, he has a different kind of right to the chair.
-==Denotion==
-It should be noted that many conceptions of rights are [[Universality (philosophy)|universalist]] and [[egalitarianism|egalitarian]].  These mean that many conceptions hold that rights apply equally to all people, such that no group might have more or fewer rights than any other.  While this statement holds quite a bit of truth, it needs further explanation.
-On the first hand, while in the West, equal distribution of rights might be seen as a ontological Good, despite the many practical shorcommings, this may not be the case everywhere.  A good example of this might be the policy in Islamic law concerning showing one's face.  Whereas men have this right, women do not.  Further, within that culture, this unequal distribution of rights is not seen as a shortcomming, but as a matter of fact.  The central realization born of this example is that while in the West prefrences might be toward universality and egalitarianism, this is not necessarily a central tennant of rights to all people.
-More needs to be said about the conception of rights which describe rights as universal and egalitarion.  Inherent in the term "right" is the distinction between conditional and absolute rights; when one simply says "right," to which of these one may be refering is ambigous.  For instance, the right to view exceptionally erotic films hinges on the condition of age in many countries, thus might be called a conditional right.  On the other hand, some may argue that the conditions for subsistence such as food, water and shelter do not hinge on any condition, and thus might be called an absolute right.  Some philosophers such as [[Jeremy Bentham]] have denied the existance of absolute rights.
-One last, but particularly important, thing must be said about absolute v. contingent rights and a universal, egalitarian conception of rights.  To be short, when one makes the claim that a particular right is being distributed unqually (not in accord with the principles of universalism and egalitarianism), he or she is actually saying that either: (1) a right is being treated as a conditional right when it should be considered
-an absolute right or, (2) the wrong contingency mechanism is being applied to a particular right.  An example about free speech might be useful in examining this principle:
-Joan lives in a society in which only males are allowed to carry weapons.  Joan then claims that rights in her society are distributed unequally.  She may be making claim number one, that the right to cary arms is being treated as a contingent right when it is actually an absolute right, available to everyone.  Much more likely, though, Joan is making claim number two, that the wrong contingency mechanism is being applied.  Joan wishes that many contingencies still apply, such as no child or convicted criminal may carry weapons, but she believes the current contingencies are inappropriate.  Of course, there has been outstanding debate over which contingencies might legitimatly and productivly be applied to particular rights.
-Thus, while the statement that  many conceptions of rights are universalist and egalitarian,  the implication of these statments requires a bit of consideration.
 ==Theoretical distinctions==
-There are numerous different theoretical distinctions in accordance with which rights may be classified. Not all sources support both sides of every distinction listed here, e.g. [[Jeremy Bentham]] denied the existence of [[natural rights]] and absolute rights, holding all rights to be of a legal character, and [[Ayn Rand]] denied the existence of [[group rights]], holding all rights to be of an individual character.
+There are numerous different theoretical distinctions in accordance with which rights may be classified. Not all sources support both sides of every distinction listed here, e.g. [[Jeremy Bentham]] denied the existence of [[natural rights]], holding all rights to be of a legal character, and [[Ayn Rand]] denied the existence of [[group rights]], holding all rights to be of an individual character.
 * '''[[Natural and legal rights|Natural rights and legal rights]]''' - There exists debate over the source of what many consider basic rights, such as the right to [[freedom of speech]].  On the one hand, these basic rights may be considered of a purely moral or ethical character, i.e., the idea of natural rights, which holds that certain rights derive from nature and cannot be modified by legislative authority.  On the other hand, these basic rights may be considered to be of a purely posited nature, i.e., the idea of legal rights, which are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and subject to change.  Other rights, such as that to access a lawyer or an abortion, avoid the question of this dichotomy by finding their validity pursuant to other, more basic rights, such as the right to due process in the case of the former, and the right to privacy in the later.
 ** '''Explicit rights and [[unenumerated rights]]''' - Explicit rights are those legal rights specifically granted by a governing body.  Unenumerated rights are those legal rights that are not explicitly granted by the governing body. Considerable discussion and disagreement has occurred over unenumerated rights (what these rights include, what ''types'' of rights they are, and others).{{fact|date=December 2008}}
@@ Line 34: / Line 13: @@
 * '''[[Negative and positive rights|Negative rights and positive rights]]''' - Negative rights require inaction from others (in the sense of rights as claims or entitlements), or permit inaction from the right bearer (in the sense of rights as liberties or permissions). Conversely, positive rights require action from others (in the sense of rights as claims or entitlements) or permit action from the right bearer (in the sense of rights as liberties or permissions).
 * '''[[Individual rights]] and [[group rights]]''' - Individual rights are rights pertaining to individuals, regardless of their membership within a group.  Group rights, in contrast are held by an ensemble of people collectively, or by the members of a group of people who have a certain characteristic in common. In some cases there can be tension between individual and group rights.  A classic instance in which group and individual rights clash is conflicts between unions and their members.  For example, members of a union may wish to contract with the employer for a wage other than that negotiated by the union, but are unable to due to the union's control of the work sphere, sometimes referred to as a "closed shop."
-* '''Absolute rights''' and '''conditional rights''' - Absolute rights are those rights applied without contingencies.  Conditional rights are granted only after meeting certain requirments.  The ability to cary weapons might be a conditional right; the right to subsistance provisions might be an absolute right.
+* '''Absolute rights''' and '''conditional rights''' - Absolute rights are those rights applied without contingencies.  Conditional rights are granted only after meeting certain requirments.  The ability to carry weapons might be a conditional right; the right to subsistence provisions might be an absolute right.{{fact}}
 Other distinctions between rights draw more on historical association or [[family resemblance]] than on precise philosophical distinctions. These include the distinction between '''[[civil and political rights]]''' and '''[[economic, social and cultural rights]]''', between which the articles of the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] are often divided. Another conception of rights groups them into '''[[three generations of human rights|three generations]]'''. These distinctions have much overlap with that between [[negative and positive rights]], as well as between [[individual rights]] and [[group rights]], but these groupings are not entirely coextensive.
-==Rights v. privliges==
-One might ask what the difference is between a right and a privlige.  One might make the following argument that there is no difference:
-Some might contend that a privlige requires a grantor, whereas a right simply exists.  However, because rights depend on a system of values (law, morality, ect), rights also depend on some grantor, specifically that value system.  In this way, both rights and privliges depend on recognition of the grantor.
-Some might argue that a privlige is always granted based on some fact (such as going out to play after cleaning one's room in the morning), whereas a right is granted regardless of condition.  However, conditional rights do depend on some fact.  And, one might deny the possibility of absolute rights and in the same move collapse the difference between right and privlige.
 ==Areas of concern==
@@ Line 56: / Line 28: @@
 Examples of groups whose rights are of particular concern include [[animal rights|animals]], and amongst [[human rights|humans]], groups such as [[children's rights|children]] and [[youth rights|youth]], [[Parents' rights movement|parents]] (both [[mothers' rights|mothers]] and [[fathers' rights movement|fathers]]), and [[men's rights|men]] and [[women's rights|women]].
-==History and historic documents==
+==History of rights and historic documents==
-The specific enumeration of rights accorded to people has historically differed greatly across space and time, and in many cases, the system of rights promulgated by one group can come into sharp and bitter conflict that of other groups. In the political sphere, a place in which rights have historically been an important issue, at present the question of who has what rights is normally addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations.  However, that question has never, as is evidenced by continuing conflict, been exhaustivly adressed by any constitution.
+The specific enumeration of rights accorded to people has historically differed greatly across space and time, and in many cases, the system of rights promulgated by one group can come into sharp and bitter conflict that of other groups. In the political sphere, a place in which rights have historically been an important issue, at present the question of who has what legal rights is normally addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations.
 Most historical notions of rights were [[authoritarianism|authoritarian]] and [[hierarchy|hierarchical]], with different people being granted different rights, and some having more rights than others. For instance, the rights of a father to be respected by his son did not indicate a [[duty]] upon the father to return that respect, and the [[divine right of kings]] to hold absolute power over their subjects did not leave room for many rights to be granted to the subjects themselves.
+Modern conceptions of rights often emphasize [[liberty]] as among the most important of rights, though conceptions of liberty (e.g. [[positive liberty|positive]] vs [[negative liberty|negative]]) frequently differ.
 [[Image:Magna Carta.jpg|250px|thumb|right|The ''[[Magna Carta]]'' or "Great Charter" was one of England's first documents containing commitments by a [[monarch|sovereign]] to his people to respect certain [[law|legal]] rights. It reduced the power of the monarch.]]