I.

Definition
- Rights is the Fundamental Freedoms and Protections claimed by humanity
II. Evolution of Rights
- Rights as an operative concept in the realm of existence, specifically in Social
and Political Context has a roots as well, and it leads back to Thomas Hobbes
and John Locke.

- Initially, human rights included basic rights like life, liberty, and property (as seen
in American and French revolutionary documents).
- Over time, they expanded to include social and economic rights, such as
healthcare and education.
- Now, people claim new rights, sometimes controversially—such as the right to
water or reproductive rights

- Early lists: life, liberty, property (e.g., American & French Revolutions).
- Modern lists: education, healthcare, welfare, equality.
- Continual expansion: newer claims like reproductive rights, access to water, etc.

III. Rights as Universal Concept

- Rights is ought to be universal as to what the author said. And it is operative in
the realm of existence. Most of the states in the world recognizes the importance
of Rights in social Context even the oppressive ones.
- The discussion focuses on rights that are meant to be universal—if one person
has them, everyone should.

IV. Importance in the SocialContext

- Rights itself is essential not just to a certain individual but to the whole community given
the fact that it allows the community to create general welfare upon the society, and it
allows as well to achieve the concept of egalitarian.

- A means as well to satisfy the demands of the community and a means as well to
outcast a certain immoral ideology
- An Alternative for Communism
V. Why Rights is commonly known as Human rights
- Basically, Rights was commonly known as Natural Rights given the fact that the majority
before believe that it came from Natural Law

- At first, people called them "natural rights", because they believed these rights came
from natural law, which was thought to be created by God. The idea was: if God gave
humans a purpose in life, then He must also give them the freedom and rights they need
to fulfill that purpose. So, these rights were considered part of God’s plan.
 - Later, people started using the term "human rights" instead. This term is more modern
and is used in international law, such as in global agreements and declarations. It's the
rights people use today to ask their governments to treat them fairly.
VI. The 4 Fundamental Rights
A. Moral Rights
- These are rights based on moral arguments—what is right or just. They
are part of a broader moral system and include the idea that if someone
claims a moral right, they believe it should be respected by everyone.
B. Legal Rights
- These are rights that are created and recognized by a specific legal
system or government.
C. Positive Rights
- Positive rights willbe rights that are recognized within some appropriate
system of actual, operative, rules
- These are rights that are explicitly recognized within an existing system—
whether legal, moral, or even within a game (like the rules in a card
game). They can include both legal rights and some moral rights that
everyone agrees on within a particular system.

Example: Right To Education

D. Critical Rights
- Critical rights are the rights that ought to be recognized, whether, as a matter of fact,
they are recognized or not.
- These are rights that should be recognized according to a higher, critical standard of
morality—even if the current system doesn’t officially recognize them.

Example: Right to Equality ( LGBTQ)

Gender issue, Ecological Issue.

Sumarry of two: A critical right to equality might demand equal education access.
But if positive rights like quality schooling aren't provided to all equally, the critical right is not
fully realized.

Positive: Techndcal
Critical: Substantive

VII. Holfelds Commentary on Legal Rights

A. Holfeld possited that the Terms “Legal Rights" is ambiguous and not easy to understand
that leads community to confusion. Hence, he articulated these 4 Concepts of Rights,
such as:
1. Liberty Rights ( Prevelages)
- Definition: A right where a person is free to do something, but no one else
has a duty to allow it
The key thing about liberty rights is that:
- They give you freedom to act, but
- They don’t mean that other people have to help you or let you do it.
Liberty rights mean you’re free to do something, but others are also free to stop you, and no one
must help you.

1(A) LIBERTY RIGHTS IN THE LIGHT OF THOMAS Hobbes

Hobbes (a political philosopher) argued that people have a "right of nature", meaning they can
do whatever is necessary to protect their own lives.

● Example:
● In a life-or-death situation (like a battlefield), a person has the right to use anything,
even another person’s body, for survival.
● But at the same time, the other person also has the right to resist (duck, run, or fight
back).
●
● Key Point: In liberty rights, no one has a duty to respect your right—they can act against it if
they want.

2(B) LIBERY RIGHTS IN THE LIGHT OF JOHN LOCKE

John Locke (another philosopher) believed that people have a liberty right to work on unowned
land and make it theirs.

● Example:
○ If you reach unclaimed land first and farm it, the land becomes yours, even if someone
else wanted it.
○ You have the liberty to take the land, but others also have the liberty to compete for it.

● Key Point: Liberty rights are available to everyone, but they do not guarantee success—
someone else might act first.

2. Claim Rights
These are rights where someone else has a duty to do or not do something.

For example, if you have the right to your property, others have a duty not to
steal it. It’s like having a claim on something that others must respect.

CLAIM RIGHTS imposing a duty

● Some people argue that rights also imply responsibilities.
● However, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that rulers (sovereigns) could have rights
without duties, while citizens had duties but no real rights except the right to defend their own
lives.

What Hobbes says: The government (or sovereign) has power over the people and can demand
things from them, but it doesn't owe them anything in return—except one thing: people can
resist if the sovereign threatens their lives.

Why it's important: Hobbes believed that in order to avoid chaos (like a civil war), people would
rationally choose to give up their rights and obey a strong ruler. This is a very one-sided
relationship: the state has rights over the people, but people mostly have duties, not rights,
toward the state.

Several kinds of Rights

This cluster of distinctions (rights of non-interference vs rightsof provision, rights of action vs
rights of recipience, negativerights vs positive rights)

A. Rights of Non-Interference (Negative Rights)

These rights mean others must not interfere with your freedom.
● Example: The right to free speech means no one should stop you from speaking.
● Example: The right to private property means others cannot take your belongings.
These are often called negative rights because they require others to avoid interfering rather
than to provide something.

B. Rights of Provision (Positive Rights)

These rights mean someone must provide a service or benefit.
● Example: The right to healthcare means the government or society must ensure medical
services
are available.
● Example: The right to education means schools must be built and teachers must be hired.
These are called positive rights because they require action and resources to be fulfilled.

Who is Responsible for Providing Rights?

● Rights of non-interference (negative rights) are easier to assign—everyone has a duty not to
violate them.
● Rights of provision (positive rights) require specific duties from governments, institutions, or
individuals.
● Example: If there is a right to education, duties may be shared among parents, teachers,
taxpayers, and governments.

C. In Personam
- Rights in Personam: Rights against a specific person or institution.
○ Example: If someone borrows money from you, you have the right to demand repayment from
them, but not from everyone.

D. In Rem
Rights in Rem: Rights that apply against everyone.
- Example: Your right to walk in a public park applies to everyone—no one can unfairly
stop you.

Special Rights vs. General Rights

● Special Rights: These arise from specific agreements or situations.
Example: A contract gives you the right to receive payment for work you have done.

● General Rights: These apply to everyone just by being human.

Example: The right to life applies to all humans, no matter their situation.

The Challenge of Providing Rights

● Some argue that only negative rights (like free speech) are real human rights because
they apply universally.
● However, others say that positive rights (like healthcare) are just as important and
should be provided by governments or international institutions.
● Example: If people have a right to healthcare, governments must decide how to fund
hospitals and medical services.

Rights Require Institutional Support

● All rights, whether negative or positive, need laws, policies, and institutions to be
effective.
● Example: Even the right to life needs police forces, laws against murder, and courts to
enforce punishment.
● This means that rights often require money and effort to uphold, making taxation and
public policies important for their enforcement.

3. Power
- The philosopher Wesley Hohfeld described different kinds of legal rights.
One of these kinds is power—specifically, the power to change legal
rights and duties.
Example:
Owning Property: Imagine there is land that no one owns. Everyone might have the freedom
(liberty) to use it. But if you work the land and claim it, you're not just using it—you are changing
the rights of others. Now they’re no longer free to use it like before. They now have a duty not to
trespass. So, your action has altered legal relationships—that’s using a Hohfeldian power.
 - A Hohfeldian power is a right that lets you change what others are
allowed or required to do.

4. Immunity
● Immunities are a type of legal right that protects a person from having their legal status
changed by others. If someone has an immunity, it means that no one else (not even the
government in some cases) has the power to take away or alter that right.

Think of it like this: If you are immune to something, it means it can’t affect you. Similarly, in law,
an immunity means you are protected from having your rights changed by someone else’s
authority.

Examples of Immunities:
1. Constitutional Rights (Bill of Rights Protections)
● If a country's constitution guarantees freedom of speech, no government official or
lawmakers can take away that right without following proper legal procedures.

Example: In the U.S., the First Amendment protects free speech, and no ordinary law can
override it.

2. Right to a Fair Trial (Due Process Protections)

● A person on trial has certain protections (like the right to remain silent). The jury cannot
punish them just because they choose not to speak.

Example: A suspect in a criminal case does not have to testify, and the court cannot assume
they are guilty just because they stayed silent.

3. Diplomatic Immunity
● Diplomats from foreign countries are often given immunity from local laws, meaning
they cannot be arrested or prosecuted in the host country under normal circumstances.

Example: A foreign ambassador in another country cannot be easily sued or jailed by that
country’s government.

General Rights and Specific Rights

When people talk about rights, they often use broad, general terms like the right to life, property,
or education. These are called generic rights—big, overarching rights that sound simple but
actually involve many detailed legal [Link], in real legal systems, rights don’t exist in
such a simple form. Instead, they break down into specific rights, which are more precise and
detailed.
For example, the right to private property is not just one simple rule. It includes different legal
rules like:

● The right to own something.

● The right to use what you own.
● The right to sell or give your property to others.
● The right to pass it on after death (inheritance/bequest).
● The right to earn money from your property.

Different countries and legal systems define and protect these rights in different ways

Two Approaches:

Top-down (generic): Some philosophers try to justify the whole idea of "property" as a system,
like saying “private property is good because it promotes freedom or utility.”

Bottom-up (specific): Others say we must justify each part of the property system individually
(e.g., inheritance, taxation, exclusive use), because some parts might be justifiable while others
aren’t.

4. The Challenge:

It’s hard to find one argument that justifies both the whole system of private property and all the
specific rights within it.

Often, people end up using different arguments for different parts, which can lead to an “untidy”
or inconsistent justification.

In Short

We talk about rights like “property” as if they’re simple, but they’re actually made up of many
different legal and moral parts. Philosophers and lawyers debate whether we should justify the
whole idea of property at once, or examine and justify each little part of it separately.

Individual and Group Rights

Traditionally, when people talk about rights, they usually mean individual human rights. That
means each person has rights that protect them from being harmed by others or the
government.

Thinkers like Hegel and Richard Tuck traced the history of these ideas to Roman law or the
Middle Ages. But the big push for individual rights really came in the 1600s. Some say this was
due to Protestant beliefs (where everyone connects directly to God), others say it came from
capitalism or the rise of modern countries.

What is a “person”?
In this context, being a person means you’re someone who can make moral claims – like saying
“I have a right to not be harmed.” It also means you recognize that other people have those
same rights. This idea is central to the way modern rights work.

Are we just individuals?

Some thinkers, like Hegel, believed people didn’t always think of themselves as individuals with
separate rights. In the past, people often saw themselves as part of a group (family, tribe, or
city). Today, many still think that just viewing people as “separate individuals” is incomplete.

Criticism of Individual Rights

Some, especially from socialist or Marxist traditions, criticize the idea of individual rights. They
argue that this focus only supports capitalism – seeing people as buyers, sellers, and workers.
Others say this idea of a “separate person” is a fiction – people are always connected to
families, communities, cultures, etc.

Group Rights
People can have rights as part of a group (like a family or a nation), and sometimes even the
group itself can have rights (like a company or a religious community). These aren't just
collections of individual rights. The group might act like its own “person” with its own interests.

For example:

A village might have the right to use land together.

Families might have privacy rights.
Nations have rights to protect their borders.

But what happens when group rights and individual rights conflict?
This is a big problem. Imagine an Amish community that wants to pull kids out of school early to
keep them in their way of life. But this limits the kids’ ability to choose a different life later. So
whose rights matter more – the group’s or the individual child’s?

Sometimes, group rights may harm individual freedom, especially when individuals inside the
group want something different.

The Big Question:

Are group rights always less important than individual rights? The text doesn’t give a final
answer but says it’s a difficult issue we need to think more deeply about.
The Concept of Ownership and Self-Ownership

John Locke’s philosophy introduces several important ideas about ownership and rights,
especially regarding self-ownership and the right to property. These ideas are central to Locke’s
justification of individual rights, particularly the rights to life, liberty, and property.
A. Ownership

1. Self-Ownership: Locke argues that every person has ownership of themselves. This
means individuals are the owners of their own bodies and have control over their labor
and work.
○ Example: When you work, the products of your labor (like a piece of art or a loaf of bread)
belong to you because they are a result of your personal effort.

2. Ownership of Property: In Locke’s view, property includes not only material

possessions but also the right to control and use those things as you wish, as long as it
doesn't infringe on others' rights.
○ Example: If you own a piece of land, no one can take it or use it without your
permission.
3. God’s Creation and Natural Rights: Locke ties the idea of ownership to a theological
belief—that people are created by God, and therefore, their right to ownership is granted
by God.

○ This is a natural right. Natural rights are things people are born with, such as the right to
life, liberty, and property, and they are not dependent on government or laws.

○ Argument: Since people are God’s creation, their lives and possessions (like their bodies
and property) must be respected, and they are entitled to keep them..

B. Right to Property
4. Labor Theory of Property: Locke famously argued that people gain ownership of
property by mixing their labor with nature.
○ Example: If you cultivate land (e.g., plant crops), you have a right to that land because your
work has transformed it into something valuable.

5. Limits on Property: Locke also discusses how people’s right to property should be
limited. A person can own land, but they should not take more than they can use or
waste resources.

○ Example: If someone takes all the water from a river and wastes it, they are violating the
natural rights of others who may also need that resource.
C. Self-Ownership and Its Philosophical Implications

● Self-Ownership as a Basis for Rights: Locke’s idea of self-ownership means that

individuals cannot be used or treated as property by others. This is central to Locke’s
arguments against slavery and for individual liberty.

○ If someone owns themselves, they cannot be owned by someone else. Therefore, slavery (or
treating people as property) is unjust.

○ Example: A person cannot be bought or sold as property, because they own themselves. No
one has the right to control or make decisions about another person’s body or life.

● Self-Ownership and Inalienability: Some philosophers argue that self-ownership is

Inalienable—meaning it cannot be given up or transferred. For example, a person can’t
sell themselves into slavery because they own themselves, and this right cannot be
taken away.

● Alternative View: Others argue that people may voluntarily give up their liberty in
extreme circumstances, such as to escape death or extreme suffering. This raises
debates about whether self-ownership is truly inalienable.

D. Self-Ownership vs. Other Rights

● Rights Based on Self-Ownership: The right to self-ownership forms the basis for many other
rights:

● The right to physical integrity (e.g., the right to not be harmed or assaulted).
● The right to freedom (e.g., the right to make decisions for yourself).

6. Collective Rights: While self-ownership focuses on individual rights, Locke’s philosophy

also touches on political rights (e.g., voting) and rights to association (e.g., forming
groups). These collective rights are important for participation in society

E. Critiques of Self-Ownership
● Is Self-Ownership Foundational?: The idea of self-ownership is attractive but can be
problematic when used as a justification for rights. The concept is widely accepted in
liberal philosophy, but some argue that self-ownership doesn’t fully explain why certain
actions, like murder or theft, are wrong.

● For example, instead of claiming that murder is wrong because it violates self
ownership, we should say that killing a person is wrong because it violates their right to
life or their physical integrity.
 ● Philosophical Shadow Boxing: The critique is that self-ownership is too abstract and
vague to be a solid foundation for a system of rights. It’s more useful as a shorthand for
individual rights like bodily integrity rather than as a full theory of rights.

6. Self-Ownership and Slavery

F. Self-Ownership and Slavery: One of the most important debates Locke’s ideas influenced is
whether self-ownership can be used to argue against slavery.

● If a person owns themselves, they cannot be owned by someone else.

● However, some argue that under certain extreme conditions (like poverty), a person
might voluntarily give up their freedom (like selling themselves into slavery), raising
complex moral questions.

G. Alternative to Locke’s Self-Ownership: Autonomy

● Some philosophers propose that autonomy (the ability to make decisions for oneself) is a
better foundation for human rights than self-ownership. Autonomy focuses on a person’s ability
to make choices about their own life and actions, rather than just on the ownership of their body.

Interests and Rights

Interests: These are things people care about. Some interests are very important (like security),
and others are less important (like personal preferences).

Rights: A right is when society or others have an obligation to protect or respect these interests.
For example, everyone has the right not to be harmed, which is a claim society should protect.

2. Mill’s Definition of Rights

John Stuart Mill says that a right is something society should defend a person’s possession of.
For instance, the right to security is something society should make sure no one harms.

The Complexity of Interest/ Interest as the Source of Rights

Determining which interests should be protected can be difficult because different people or
groups may have conflicting interests. For example, a parent’s interest in raising their child
might conflict with the child’s interest in being raised in a supportive environment. This means
sometimes rights have to be ranked or prioritized.

Rights come from interests. If an interest is strong and affects everyone (like the right to live), it
might become a human right. Other rights might only apply in certain situations, like rights for
members of a club.
But people have many different interests, so it's common for rights to conflict. For example, a
parent's wish to raise their child may clash with the child's need for a safe environment. Courts
often have to decide which interest is more important.

Interests can belong to:

Types of Interest:
● Individual interests: Interests specific to a person (e.g., wanting to know the identity of a
sperm donor).
● Group interests: Interests that arise from people being part of a group, like the interests
of a company or a nation.
Types of Group Interest
● Artificial groups: These are groups people voluntarily join to pursue specific interests.
For example, a sports club is an artificial group formed to play a game.

● Natural groups: These are groups people are born into, like families or nations.
Sometimes, being part of these groups creates interests you wouldn't have had
otherwise (like the interest in protecting your family or nation)
Overlap of Interests
● Interests can be shaped by the groups people are part of, and the interests of the group
can also shape the individuals within it.

For example, a religious group might form to meet the spiritual needs of its members, but over
time, the group itself may develop additional interests (like building a place of worship).

Rights and Utility

How Utilitarianism Can Justify Rights

● Utilitarian Calculation: To justify a right, a utilitarian would assess the consequences of
fulfilling or violating that right. If the fulfillment of a right increases overall happiness or well
being, it can be considered morally justified.

Example of AID:
● Some people may suffer from not knowing their biological father.
● Others may worry about privacy or potential negative consequences (like less
willingness to donate).
● A utilitarian would consider all interests and decide if the benefits (knowledge of
identity) outweigh the harms (possible donor reluctance). If the overall benefit of fulfilling a right
exceeds the harm, the right is justified.
Slogan 1: "Rights are side-constraints" (Nozick)
● This idea, associated with philosophers like Nozick, suggests that rights protect individuals'
separate lives and set boundaries that cannot be crossed for the sake of achieving other goals
(e.g., maximizing overall happiness). According to this view, rights can't be violated even for the
greater good.

Slogan 2: "Rights are trumps" (Dworkin)

● Rights "trump" or override utility. This means that no matter how much benefit might come
from violating a right, the right should still be respected. This is because rights are seen as
having moral priority.

Utilitarian Response:
● A utilitarian would argue that rights, like the right to private property, can still be justified if they
lead to better outcomes for everyone. For example, even though the state may have the right to
take private property in emergencies, it should do so only when necessary, with clear rules, and
for the greater good.

Conclusion
● Utilitarian Justification of Rights: While rights may be justified using utilitarian principles,
some argue that rights should not always be compromised for utility.
● Rights serve to protect individual interests, but utilitarians argue that these rights must be
based on maximizing overall well-being. If a right benefits society as a whole, it can be seen as
justified.

The "No-Theory Theory"

● The No-Theory Theory suggests that rights exist not because of a deep philosophical
foundation or justification but because people claim them, and society recognizes them.

Danto’s perspective: People don’t need to justify rights through complex philosophical theories;
rights exist because we assert them and others recognize them. The process of claiming and
acknowledging rights is enough to establish them in society.

Example: If a community collectively recognizes the right to free speech, it becomes accepted
without needing a grand philosophical argument behind it.

3. Why the No-Theory Theory Might be Attractive

● Sometimes, we might find it impossible to justify rights with one single theory (e.g.,
autonomy, utility, or other moral values).
● When faced with this, some might prefer to treat rights as basic principles or intuitions—
things that we just know or feel are right, without needing further justification.
4. The Problem with the No-Theory Theory
● The problem with this theory is that rights can be denied by powerful people or
governments. If someone doesn’t recognize a right, then it may not be acknowledged.

Example: A government could deny people's rights to free speech, even if those people claim it.
One person's refusal to accept a right could block progress.

5. How Rights Become Established Over Time

● History and Sociology: Over time, rights have become widely recognized through
historical struggles (e.g., abolition of slavery, civil rights movements). These events
shaped society’s acceptance of rights.

● Public Acceptance: Today, claiming rights (individual or group rights) is common, and
people expect recognition of these rights in society. Even political conservatives
generally acknowledge rights due to the historical influence of movements like the
Reformation, antislavery campaigns, and human rights struggles.

Example: The idea of slavery is no longer accepted by society due to the long history of
arguments against it, leading to universal recognition that slavery violates human rights.

6. The Challenge of the No-Theory Theory

Some critics argue that the No-Theory Theory lacks solid philosophical foundation, making it
vulnerable to persistent dispute.

● To counter this, philosophers often rely on other arguments (like those of Locke, Kant, or
Mill) to convince those who reject rights. These are different approaches that help
persuade people to accept rights, even if they don’t agree with the original claims