The Nature of Claim-Rights

Wenar, Leif

doi:10.1086/668707

Cited by 78 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The obligation correlated with that moral claim right thereby takes a particular form: a strict duty not to perform that action. This is the standard picture so familiar when moral claim rights correlate with directed obligations (Wenar, 2012). One agent's right to clean water, for example, creates in another a directed obligation to not pollute the water supply.…”

Section: Reconciled Climate Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Challenging the European Climate Debate: Can Universal Climate Justice and Economics be Reconciled with Particularistic Politics?

Creutzig

Hedahl

Rydge³

et al. 2014

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers from various disciplines have built impressive but distinct compendia on climate change; the defining challenge for humanity. In the spirit of Lord Dahrendorf, this paper represents the output of interdisciplinary collaboration and integrates state-of-the-art academic expertise from the fields of philosophy, economics and governance. Our focus is on Europe, which is widely perceived as a leader in climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, leadership weakness on climate over recent years, largely due to recession and political vacillation, is eroding this perception. What is needed is a firm justification for strong climate action, acknowledgement of the available tools, awareness of the reasons for our failures to date, and a realistic, but goal-oriented strategy for an integrated climate policy. We therefore present current normative insights from climate justice research highlighting the need to make institutions responsive to those most vulnerable; we discuss the economics of the transition to a low-carbon economy, pointing to key policy instruments and post-2020 climate targets for the EU; we contrast the normative and quantitative synoptic principles with the particularistic implementation schemes and politics of (not) implementing measures on the ground; and we suggest a careful coordination of European climate policies with acute challenges that could increase both climate justice and political feasibility. Policy Implications• Climate justice demonstrates that action on climate change is a moral imperative.• Modern public economics provides a rich framework for examining the climate change problem through the lens of imperfect economies with policy for market failures.• Politics remain inadequate, as specific implementation schemes follow rationales that are decoupled from synoptic moral and economic principles.

show abstract

Section: Reconciled Climate Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Challenging the European Climate Debate: Can Universal Climate Justice and Economics be Reconciled with Particularistic Politics?

Creutzig

Hedahl

Rydge³

et al. 2014

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hohfeld observes that 'right', both in ordinary usage and in legal disputes, is used to refer to several distinct logical relations that can hold between legal parties. Yet, he singles out one of the referents of rights-talk, the so-called claim-right, as paradigmatic-and to this day a significant number of theorists side with him on this issue (e.g., Kramer and Steiner 2007;Streenivasan 2005;Wenar 2013b). What makes a claim-right so special is that it is correlated with a directed duty (Hohfeld 1964: 33).…”

Section: The Kind-desire Theory Of Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why it is Disrespectful to Violate Rights: Contractualism and the Kind-Desire Theory

Schaab

2017

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most prominent theories of rights, the Will Theory and the Interest Theory, notoriously fail to accommodate all and only rights-attributions that make sense to ordinary speakers. The Kind-Desire Theory, Leif Wenar's recent contribution to the field, appears to fare better in this respect than any of its predecessors. The theory states that we attribute a right to an individual if she has a kind-based desire that a certain enforceable duty be fulfilled. A kind-based desire is a reason to want something which one has simply in virtue of being a member of a certain kind. Rowan Cruft objects that this theory creates a puzzle about the relation between rights and respect. In particular, if rights are not grounded in aspects of the particular individuals whose rights they are (e.g., their well-being), how can we sustain the intuitive notion that to violate a right is to disrespect the right-holder? I present a contractualist account of respect which reconciles the Kind-Desire Theory with the intuition that rights-violations are disrespectful. On this account, respect for a person is a matter of acknowledging her legitimate authority to make demands on the will and conduct of others. And I argue that kind-based desires authorize a person to make demands even if they do not correspond to that person's well-being or other non-relational features.

show abstract

“…We then seem to have an instance of the standard problem for will theory, as A lacks the ability to control the normative elements associated 15 Hence, in Hohfeldian terms, the lottery manager has a power to alter the participants first-order incidents within some particular scheme of rules. 16 For versions placing themselves outside both interest theory and will theory, or within both, see, for instance, Wenar 2005Wenar , 2013Sreenivasan 2005;Cruft 2004;Feinberg 1980;Darwall 2006;Skorupski 2010;Rainbolt 2006;and Vallentyne 2007. See also the responses to Wenar andSreenivasan in Kramer andSteiner 2007 andKramer 2013.…”

Section: The Idea Of Disjunctive Rights IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

On Disjunctive Rights

Agnafors¹

2017

The Southern J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the idea of disjunctive rights—an idea first suggested by Joel Feinberg and more recently advocated by Richard Arneson. Using a hypothetical scenario to bring forward a conflict between two rights that cannot be simultaneously fulfilled, the suggestion that the conflict can be solved by describing the right‐holders as holding disjunctive rights—rights that involve, in a significant way, a disjunction—is scrutinized. Several interpretations of the idea of disjunctive rights are examined from the perspectives of the interest theory and will theory of rights. Ultimately, the idea of disjunctive rights fails to provide an acceptable solution to the problem at hand, as each interpretation has unacceptable implications. This conclusion challenges the compossibilist thesis, according to which moral rights do not, ultimately, conflict. Alternatively, if one wishes to keep the possibility of compossibility and disjunctive rights, the mainstream theories of rights must be revised or rejected.

show abstract

The Nature of Claim-Rights

Cited by 78 publications

References 22 publications

Challenging the European Climate Debate: Can Universal Climate Justice and Economics be Reconciled with Particularistic Politics?

Challenging the European Climate Debate: Can Universal Climate Justice and Economics be Reconciled with Particularistic Politics?

Why it is Disrespectful to Violate Rights: Contractualism and the Kind-Desire Theory

On Disjunctive Rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About