Rights Theories Explained

Theories about the origin of rights, different kinds of rights, how we decide what rights are ours, and how to handle conflicts between them.

Rights show a relationship between the person who has the right and those who must respect it.
We can look at rights from two sides:
- Right-holder Perspective: From their view, a 'right' is like having permission or a valid reason to take action, exist, enjoy something, or make demands.
- Right-observer Perspective: From this angle, a 'right' puts a duty or responsibility on others.
When we say someone has a right, we mean they are allowed to do something or choose not to do it.
Having a right means you have the ethical or traditional freedom to act a certain way.

According to Kant, duties come before rights. Duties are the foundation, and rights arise from them.
Example: Because I have a duty to keep promises, those I promise something to have the right to expect me to fulfill it.
Duties are a wider idea than rights. We might have some general duties that don't give anyone specific a right related to us.
- Example: We should help the poor, but that doesn't mean any particular poor person can demand money from us.

Deontologists focus on 'What should I do?', while strong right theorists ask 'What do I have a right to do?'
For deontologists, morality means having duties to others. For rights theorists, it's about both your own rights and those of others.
Deontologists work on fulfilling duties, while rights theorists defend claims about rights.

(Also called moral rights or human rights.) Everyone has some rights simply because they are human.
Before any government or social rules, people have rights to life, freedom, and property (as argued by John Locke) or life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness (according to Thomas Jefferson).
Governments can't justly take away these natural rights, and we can't give them away either.
These rights come with being human, and no one should stop us from using them.
Morality exists whether humans agree on it or not.
Natural rights are negative rights.
- They only require others not to interfere with us, especially concerning our life, freedom, and property. Right-observers are obligated not to interfere with the right-holder's freedom.
Having a right means everyone else has a duty not to stop you from properly using that right.
Examples:
- If you can educate your children as you wish, others must not interfere.
- If you can sell your house, others must not stop you.
- If you can get medical care, others must not prevent you.

(Also known as conventional rights.) These rights come from agreements.
When people agree on rules (a contract) to guide how they act with each other and follow these rules, that's where morality begins.
When the agreement ends, the rights it created also end.
We need to escape the state of nature, which is anarchy, where nothing is immoral, prohibited or required, and need guarantees of safety. Assurances are needed because of equal needs, scarcity, equal power, and limited altruism (Thomas Hobbes).
Morality is something societies create rather than discover.
Social contract rights can be negative and positive rights.
- We not only have the right to non-interference, but sometimes to expect positive actions from others.
Examples:
- The right to make a will or operate a car.
- To make a will, one must be of sound mind, write down their wishes, and have the document witnessed. If these requirements are fulfilled, that person has the right to make a will and have it respected.
Conventional rights come from social structures, while moral rights exist regardless of these structures.

If morality comes from a social contract, and there's no other basis for it, then the social contract can't be rationally criticized.
Gilbert Harman's reply: Some parts of the contract might disagree with each other or be based on wrong beliefs. So, a social contract theory doesn't mean a society's moral code can't be criticized. But does this argument really work?

Social contract theories depend on unspoken agreements or consent. How can we know what's in an actual contract if it's not written down?
In some cases, agreement (and thus the social contract itself) seems like a made-up idea (like with euthanasia, abortion, or the death penalty).