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 Will theory, advanced by Hart, holds that rights protect the right-holder's normative control over duties, not the advancement of their interests.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Rights to food, shelter, and safety protect vital interests that exist independently of whether holders exercise control over related duties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Control without interest-protection is normatively hollow; a right to demand others act against one's welfare is conceptually incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Children and incapacitated persons hold rights yet lack full normative control capacity, suggesting interest-protection is the core function.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rights holders often value control over their entitlements more than passive benefit receipt, as seen in autonomy-respecting legal systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Interest theory struggles to explain why we protect choices that harm the right-holder, like freedom to refuse beneficial medical treatment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Control theory better accounts for transferability and waiver of rights, which presuppose the holder's normative power, not just interests.
?
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.