Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Neil MacCormick's critique of Hart explicitly demonstrate... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Very young children and the severely mentally ill cannot have legal rights

    Neil MacCormick's critique of Hart explicitly demonstrated that children's rights are the clearest counterexample to will theory's capacity requirement.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Children possess legal rights (education, protection) yet cannot exercise the conscious choices will theory requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Will theory's capacity requirement implies rights depend on autonomous decision-making ability, excluding the cognitively immature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.MacCormick's insight shows we recognize children's rights as genuine precisely when will theory cannot explain them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Children's rights might not require will theory's full capacity—only potential or future capacity to exercise rights.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hart himself distinguished between rights-holders and those who exercise rights, allowing will theory to accommodate children.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even interest theory struggles with children's rights, so MacCormick's critique doesn't uniquely vindicate alternative approaches.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Rights & Liberty1 linked

    Related

    Children possess legal rights (education, protection) yet cannot exercise the co...Children's rights might not require will theory's full capacity—only potential o...Even interest theory struggles with children's rights, so MacCormick's critique ...Hart himself distinguished between rights-holders and those who exercise rights,...
    +3 moreShow less
    MacCormick's insight shows we recognize children's rights as genuine precisely w...Very young children and the severely mentally ill cannot have legal rightsWill theory's capacity requirement implies rights depend on autonomous decision-...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit