This document discusses different theories of political and moral rights. It outlines Wesley Hohfeld's 4-fold structure of rights, including privileges, claims, powers, and immunities. Natural rights are discussed as being moral and universal, while positive rights are established by laws. The document also examines different justifications for rights, including that they protect individual interests, choices, and attributes or that they appeal to moral or political goals like utility. However, the document raises objections to each of these theories and concludes that the concept of rights should be abandoned.

1. Political philosophy

2. An entitlement to perform, or refrain from, certain
actions.
Wesley Hohfeld: suggested a 4-Fold structure of rights;
1)Privilege/liberty – I have a privilege to do x if I have
no duty not to do x. I have no right to steal – I have a
duty not to steal.
2)Claim: I have a claim right that someone else does x
in certain cases which they have a duty to me to do x.
Claim rights can be ‘negative’ – require other people
not to interfere with me the right not to be killed, or
‘positive’ – require that others do a certain action the
right to be paid if I work.
Negative = non-interference, positive = of provision

3. Claim rights Entail a duty – but not every duty entails a
claim right. You have a duty to give to charity, but
you haven’t violated anyone’s rights if you decide not
too.
3)Power: power is there when I have the authority to
alter my own/someone else’s rights & duties – Judges
have the right to set prison sentences.
4) Immunity: I have immunity if someone else can’t
change my rights or duties. The right to freedom of
religion – no-one has the right to impose a religion
on me.
A system of rights is to accept a distribution of liberties
and duties.

4. Natural rights(NR)
Laws that violate NR’s can be condemned because
NR don’t depend on being recognised by law –
they are moral! Therefore universal (does this
depend on universal objective morality?)
Positive Rights (PR)
Are recognised and established by a system of
rules. If all are PR – they only exist when
recognised by law.
If a right imposes duties it must be recognised and
enforced. Rights need authoritative recognition &
legal enforcement – so NR are nonsensical.

5. Laws fail to recognise all rights – a law may
also violate a right because it contradicts
another law UK law conforming to EU law on
our rights.
Laws also don’t recognise what ought to be a
right – making the laws morally wrong (it
wouldn’t make sense however, to say the
right exists if the law doesn’t protect it).
We should reject NR. Otherwise we’re
defending different types of right.

6. We need to look at; their functions & what justifies a right.
Their functions(once again, not like a wedding reception or anything, they don’t get married)
Choice: rights relate to freedom. We can argue – rights
have the function of saying when freedom may/may not
be limited. Having a right could also be having a choice.
OBJECTIONS;
We can’t give rights to things that don’t make
autonomous choices – infants, animals etc. If a right is
to have choice – rights are limited further.
Some say some rights are inalienable (you don’t have
power to waive or transfer) right to life, or freedom, but
if rights are choices no right can be inalienable.
Rights protect other interests just freedom. Why pick out
freedom specifically?
Not sent to their
rooms or anything
like us, wouldn’t
it be funny
though? ‘rights go
to your room!’
(its currently
10.15, I’m very
tired. Sorry.)

7. Interests: Our interests generate rights. A person has a right
to make them better off i.e. the right to healthcare,
education etc. Even those who cant choose have interests –
which create rights i.e. a pet’s right to be looked after and
fed. Also inalienable rights come about because there are
interests too important for a person to have choice over -
right to life etc.
OBJECTIONS;
Just because I have an interest, doesn’t mean it should be a
right I have an interest to be given money, but I have no
right to it.
Michael freedan: ‘a human right is a conceptual device …
regarded as essential to the adequate functioning of a
human being’

8. Just because we have an interest, doesn’t make it a
right.
1)The interest must be closely connected to what
we think is required for an adequate life.
2) We must want to protect what may conflict with
it - preference. I might not want you to have
‘freedom of speech’ as I don’t like what you’re
saying. As you have this right my preference isn’t
good enough to deprive you of that right.
3) We must be able to impose duties to protect it.

9. Appeal to individual attributes
We may be morally required to respect rights because of individuals –
Locke argues that people have NR by God.
To have rights is to be part of a moral community that agree to live by
certain rules.
Kant- individuals are ‘ends in themselves’. Autonomous choice is the
basis of morality; the source of value – everything has value because
it’s adopted as an end by someone. To give rights recognises people
as ‘ends in themselves’- we don’t give rights in someone’s interests.
OBJECTIONS;
Our rights are shaped by conditions that relate to others and social
goods. Right to property doesn’t entail me to do whatever I want
with it – I have to take into consideration the rights of others – I cant
just decide to build a skyscraper out of my property because I have a
right to my property.

10. Appeal to moral or political goals
Mill – we can derive a theory of rights from
utilitarianism. Society may use the law to regulate
conduct that consists in ‘injuring the interests of one
another… which, either by express legal provision or
tacit understanding, ought to be considered rights’
(141)
Utility is ‘the ultimate appeal … but it must be utility in
the largest sense, grounded on the permanent
interests of man as a progressive being’ (70)
Rights relate to our ‘permanent interests’ – singling these
for protection contributes most to utility. i.e. freedom of
thought and speech will help us discover and understand
the truth.

11. If proved that freedom of thought etc didn’t
contribute to utility we wouldn’t have these
rights. We only have rights that contribute to
utility.
Utility and rights may conflict – Mills defence is
that we progress through having freedom –
however, there have been 2 World wars which
suggest otherwise.
Rights protect individual interests against
opposition – I can say what I want, even if its best
I don’t but no-one can stop me. If the ground for
rights is utility – its insecure.

12. Talk of rights should be abandoned.
The function of rights shows that the idea of
rights comes from a view of humans being
separated not living communally together.
It assumes interests can be defined as
individual, independent of others.
Equal rights create an elusion of equality when
there isn’t.