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 that cannot be exercised or waived by its holder fails the core criterion of will theories, making health an unsuitable candidate under that framework.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Not all rights require waivability—many inalienable rights (dignity, freedom from torture) are non-waivable by design.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Health rights can be exercised through choice of treatment, providers, and medical decisions even if waiving health itself is impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Will theory need not require waivability of the underlying good, only control over claiming and enforcing the right itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Will theories define rights by agents' capacity to make autonomous choices about their exercise and waiver.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Health often cannot be waived without self-harm, limiting meaningful autonomous control over this supposed right.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If a 'right' lacks waivability, it functions as a duty or constraint rather than a right properly understood.
?
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.