{"title":"权利与第一人称和第二人称的关系","authors":"Rowan Cruft","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 4 develops a new account of what it is to be owed a duty. There are two parts to the analysis. The first part says that it is distinctive of a duty owed to a capable party (an adult, young person, corporation as opposed to, e.g. a baby or a rabbit) that that party is required to conceive the action the duty enjoins in first-personal terms as to be ‘done to me’. The second part says that it is distinctive of a duty owed to any party whatsoever (including ‘incapable’ parties such as babies or rabbits) that the duty-bearer is required to conceive the action the duty enjoins in second-personal terms as to be ‘done to an addressable party, a being conceivable as “you”’. These requirements need not be met for the duty to exist, for it to be fulfilled by its bearer, or for it to have a direction—but their obtaining as requirements is definitive of its being owed to someone. The chapter shows how this distinguishes demanding on one’s own behalf as owed a duty from demanding on behalf of another or in relation to an undirected duty.","PeriodicalId":441247,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rights’ Relation to the First and Second Person\",\"authors\":\"Rowan Cruft\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chapter 4 develops a new account of what it is to be owed a duty. There are two parts to the analysis. The first part says that it is distinctive of a duty owed to a capable party (an adult, young person, corporation as opposed to, e.g. a baby or a rabbit) that that party is required to conceive the action the duty enjoins in first-personal terms as to be ‘done to me’. The second part says that it is distinctive of a duty owed to any party whatsoever (including ‘incapable’ parties such as babies or rabbits) that the duty-bearer is required to conceive the action the duty enjoins in second-personal terms as to be ‘done to an addressable party, a being conceivable as “you”’. These requirements need not be met for the duty to exist, for it to be fulfilled by its bearer, or for it to have a direction—but their obtaining as requirements is definitive of its being owed to someone. The chapter shows how this distinguishes demanding on one’s own behalf as owed a duty from demanding on behalf of another or in relation to an undirected duty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":441247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Chapter 4 develops a new account of what it is to be owed a duty. There are two parts to the analysis. The first part says that it is distinctive of a duty owed to a capable party (an adult, young person, corporation as opposed to, e.g. a baby or a rabbit) that that party is required to conceive the action the duty enjoins in first-personal terms as to be ‘done to me’. The second part says that it is distinctive of a duty owed to any party whatsoever (including ‘incapable’ parties such as babies or rabbits) that the duty-bearer is required to conceive the action the duty enjoins in second-personal terms as to be ‘done to an addressable party, a being conceivable as “you”’. These requirements need not be met for the duty to exist, for it to be fulfilled by its bearer, or for it to have a direction—but their obtaining as requirements is definitive of its being owed to someone. The chapter shows how this distinguishes demanding on one’s own behalf as owed a duty from demanding on behalf of another or in relation to an undirected duty.