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
    Very young children and the severely mentally ill cannot ... — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    Rights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Having a legal right requires the capacity to control the relevant legal machinery
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Very young children and the severely mentally ill lack the capacity to control the relevant legal machinery
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Legal rights can be held by an entity even when exercised vicariously through appointed representatives, as with corporations and estates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Guardians, trustees, and parens patriae doctrines allow courts to enforce rights on behalf of those lacking capacity without negating those rights.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The will theory's equation of right-holding with control conflates the possession of a right with its exercise, a distinction Hart himself acknowledged.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On interest theory (Raz, MacCormick), rights protect interests sufficient to ground duties in others, not the capacity to control legal machinery.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Infants and the severely mentally ill possess legally cognizable interests in welfare, bodily integrity, and inheritance that courts routinely protect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      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.

    Topics

    Rights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Guardians, trustees, and parens patriae doctrines allow courts to enforce rights...Having a legal right requires the capacity to control the relevant legal machine...Infants and the severely mentally ill possess legally cognizable interests in we...Legal rights can be held by an entity even when exercised vicariously through ap...
    +4 moreShow less
    Neil MacCormick's critique of Hart explicitly demonstrated that children's right...On interest theory (Raz, MacCormick), rights protect interests sufficient to gro...The will theory's equation of right-holding with control conflates the possessio...Very young children and the severely mentally ill lack the capacity to control t...

    Similar

    Very young children and the severely mentally ill lack the capacity to...90%A woman's reproductive autonomy in bearing a child likely to have a di...70%All innocent persons have a right to life.69%Animals cannot make claims of justice on humans69%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: legal-rights
    View source passageHide passage
    The answer will often turn upon whether one embraces an interest- or a choice-theory of rights. MacCormick (1976), for example, argued that any theory of rights which could not accommodate children’s rights must be deficient, and this was a reason, in his view, for adopting an interest theory. Wellman (1995), on the other hand, claims that to assert that very young children or the severely mentally ill can have legal rights is to distort the concept of a right, since they lack the relevant contr
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit