Rights against the world

IF 1.1 1区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

ANALYSIS Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1093/analys/anad067

Gopal Sreenivasan

引用次数: 0

Abstract

For philosophers, rights against the world are equivalent to rights in rem. Contrary to what Hart thought, however, this does not make them equivalent to general rights. Rights in rem contrast with rights in personam, whereas general rights contrast with special rights. As I explain, rights against the world can be either general rights or special rights. My explanation follows Waldron’s strategy of exhibiting property rights as justified by Locke’s theory of property as a case of rights in rem that are also special rights. Moreover, despite what ‘in rem’ means in Latin, rights against the world include more than property rights. For example, they also include moral human rights. With moral human rights and property rights alike, the correlative duties are borne by ‘everyone’, understood in a dynamic sense I undertake to specify.

查看原文本刊更多论文

与世界对抗的权利

对哲学家来说，针对世界的权利等同于物权。然而，与哈特的想法相反，这并没有使它们等同于一般权利。物权与对人权相对应，而一般权利与特殊权利相对应。正如我所解释的，对世权利既可以是一般权利，也可以是特殊权利。我的解释遵循了沃尔德伦的策略，即洛克的财产理论所证明的财产权是物权的一种情况，同时也是特殊权利。此外，尽管 "物权 "在拉丁语中的意思是 "in rem"，但对世界的权利不仅仅包括财产权。例如，它们还包括道德人权。无论是道德人权还是财产权，"每个人 "都要承担相应的义务，我将从动态的角度对其进行阐述。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

ANALYSIS PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Analysis is the most established and esteemed forum in which to publish short discussions of topics in philosophy. Articles published in Analysis lend themselves to the presentation of cogent but brief arguments for substantive conclusions, and often give rise to discussions which continue over several interchanges. A wide range of topics are covered including: philosophical logic and philosophy of language, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and moral philosophy.