Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A right-holder has a right because having that right furthers the right-holder's interests
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Rights can be grounded in autonomy and rational agency, not welfare, as Kant argues persons have dignity irrespective of interest-satisfaction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A right-holder may have rights that conflict with or diminish their own interests, such as the right to make self-destructive choices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Will theory, advanced by Hart, holds that rights protect the right-holder's normative control over duties, not the advancement of their interests.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
On Hart's account, a right-holder who waives their right demonstrates that control—not benefit—is the defining feature of right-holding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The function of a right is to further the right-holder's interests
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Having a right makes the right-holder better off
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.