Which Right is Right? - an analytical dialogue
(2007)Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- In this paper, we strive to analytically debate through dialogue, the question of positive rights and whether or not positive rights are the preferable way to interpret and practically implement rights. We present our own definition of rights influenced by Wesley Newcomb Hohfelds idea of relational rights. And use it as a base for discussion in the second half of the paper. The discussion is centered on two arguments which are discussed back and forth between the authors, where one side takes a position for positive rights and the other takes a more defensive stance against them. The first argument is concerning the enforcement of rights and is based I an argument of Henry Shue that claims that positive rights are required through... (More)
- In this paper, we strive to analytically debate through dialogue, the question of positive rights and whether or not positive rights are the preferable way to interpret and practically implement rights. We present our own definition of rights influenced by Wesley Newcomb Hohfelds idea of relational rights. And use it as a base for discussion in the second half of the paper. The discussion is centered on two arguments which are discussed back and forth between the authors, where one side takes a position for positive rights and the other takes a more defensive stance against them. The first argument is concerning the enforcement of rights and is based I an argument of Henry Shue that claims that positive rights are required through enforcement. The second argument regards the values and purposes of rights. We find that these arguments of-fer no significant argument that something other than the opinions of the debaters to decide the worth of positive rights. In conclusion, the issue seems difficult based on the initial argument presented within but further discussion based on more normative approach may yield better results. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1319554
- author
- Strömholm, Daniel and Bergqvist, Edvin
- supervisor
- organization
- year
- 2007
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- hohfeld, social rights, definition of rights, duties, Social sciences, Samhällsvetenskaper
- language
- English
- id
- 1319554
- date added to LUP
- 2008-01-08 00:00:00
- date last changed
- 2008-01-30 00:00:00
@misc{1319554,
abstract = {{In this paper, we strive to analytically debate through dialogue, the question of positive rights and whether or not positive rights are the preferable way to interpret and practically implement rights. We present our own definition of rights influenced by Wesley Newcomb Hohfelds idea of relational rights. And use it as a base for discussion in the second half of the paper. The discussion is centered on two arguments which are discussed back and forth between the authors, where one side takes a position for positive rights and the other takes a more defensive stance against them. The first argument is concerning the enforcement of rights and is based I an argument of Henry Shue that claims that positive rights are required through enforcement. The second argument regards the values and purposes of rights. We find that these arguments of-fer no significant argument that something other than the opinions of the debaters to decide the worth of positive rights. In conclusion, the issue seems difficult based on the initial argument presented within but further discussion based on more normative approach may yield better results.}},
author = {{Strömholm, Daniel and Bergqvist, Edvin}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Which Right is Right? - an analytical dialogue}},
year = {{2007}},
}