An Introduction to Rights

Abstract

Rights come in various types - human, moral, civil, political and legal - and claims about who has a right, and to what, are often contested. What are rights? Are they timeless and universal, or merely conventional? How are they related to other morally significant values, such as well-being, autonomy, and community? Can animals have rights? Or fetuses? Do we have a right to do as we please so long as we do not harm others? This is the only accessible and readable introduction to the history, logic, moral implications, and political tendencies of the idea of rights. It is organized chronologically and discusses important events, such as the French Revolution. As an undergraduate text it is well-suited to introductions to political philosophy, moral philosophy, and ethics. It could also be used in courses on political theory in departments of political science and government, and in courses on legal theory in law schools.

There is no “point” in decision-making: a model of transactive rationality for public policy and administration

“…Human rights were not explicitly referred to until the Scientific Enlightenment in the seventeenth century (Edmundson 2004). Dewey (1919Dewey ( /1999) noted this as a correspondence, or coincidence: ''There has been, roughly speaking, a coincidence in the development of modern experimental science and of democracy.''…”

“…Monarchy and religious orthodoxy were rejected for every individual's dignity and access to knowledge. In the centuries after the Enlightenment and through the French Revolution, the American Declaration of Independence, World War II, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights thinking evolved, entered the lingua franca of global politics, and became codified in international law (Edmundson 2004;Steiner and Alston 2000). Human rights standards may make demands beyond what is immediately expedient.…”

The Moral Foundations of Criminal Liability

“…For instance, it is a crime to infringe upon an individual's right to life by killing, right to personal safety by causing physical injury, and right to property by stealing or causing damage to it. Furthermore, the emphasis on the prevention of harm to the general welfare and common good of the 14 For further discussion on this concept see Ridley A, 1998 community has resulted in actions such as causing pollution and producing unsafe products being denounced and criminalised by criminal law. Moreover, the justification for the criminalisation of certain offensive behaviours lies in maintaining the common morality of a society.…”

“…That is, if a person autonomously infringes upon the rights of others, then they should bear responsibility for the infringement 7 . Liberal theorists such as Hobbes and Locke place great emphasis on the respect of the liberty of individuals, postulating that they should be left free to choose actions or omissions without any intervention by criminal law unless necessary to prevent the causing of harm to others [14]. From the perspective of the principle of autonomy, criminalisation is justified to prevent and punish infringements of the rights of others, including the right to life, personal safety, property and so forth.…”

“…These sources should be grounded in reasons, consistent with other standards used by persons to make a moral judgment. In order to provide a consistent and constructive approach to making moral judgments, guidance can be sought by invoking certain basic ethical/moral theories and concepts such as deontological and rights theories and utilitarianism 14 , as discussed earlier.…”