RIGHT 權利
What one DESERVES AND CAN DEMAND BECAUSE of LAW OR JUSTICE.
Hypernym
- DESERVEBe APPROPRIATE:fitting to RECEIVE a certain PROFIT, DAMAGE:harm, REWARD, OR PUNISHMENT.
- APPROPRIATEEXCELLENT in a DEFINED SITUATION OR FOR a DEFINED NEED.
See also
- LAWGROUP of ENDURING PUBLIC COMMANDS SHOULD:obligatory FOR ALL MEMBERS of a STATE.
- NATURAL LAWNATURAL LAW NOT WRITTEN down, AND NOT DECIDED by any GOVERNMENT BUT SHOULD:supposed to be FOLLOWED EVERYWHERE.
Hyponym
- HUMAN RIGHT NATURAL JUST RIGHT.
Old Chinese Criteria
Classical Latin distinguishes between
LEX "written law", and
IUS "1. "principles of justice as (partly) embodied in laws"; 2. "right, privilege, just claim". A law may confer legal rights. Rights without a basis in written law are natural rights.
FAS "divine right, divine justice".
It is this second meaning of IUS that is relevant under our synonym group RIGHT. Thus in ancient Rome we have iura populi "the legal rights of the people", ius civitatis "rights of citizenship", ius libertatis "freedom rights", iura muliebria "women's rights". Crucial for the history of property was the ius retinendi "the right to continue to have what one owns". There also was the important ius suffragii "the right to vote in an assembly". In later times, there was, for example, the notorious ius primae noctis "the right to spend the first night with the newly-wed bride".
The IUS of a person is his or her legal standing with respect to specific rights. Thus one can have or not have IUS "legal standing" in Latin, and one can be sui iuris "of legally independent status, legally free to act".
According to Hobbes, Leviatan p. 86, the lex imposes obligations whereas the the ius conveys liberties.
A IUS could be moribus constitutum "customary", or statutory.
One category of rights that is of crucial importance is that of ius nudum "naked rights, i.e. rights without a remedy, rights which one has but which are unenforcable".
Among enforcable rights a crucial distinction is between real rights which were enforced by actio in rem "action concerning the matter at issue" and personal rights which were enforcable by actio in personam "measures taken regarding the person (whose duty it is to fulfill the right)".
Note that in Latin, as in modern Chinese, the word for power, POTESTAS, can also be used to refer to a rightful power, i.e. a right to do something.
In English, the distinction between LAW and RIGHT is discussed in Owen Barfield's classic History in English Words, ed. 1985 p. 53: "Thus our useful distinction between law and right was once geographical rather than semantic, the two words covering roughly the eastern and the western halves of England."
Jeremy Bentham explained rights as originating from duties imposed by a legislator on a society with the intention of benefiting a persons or groups of persons. This definition or explanation is useful, but clearly too broad.
H.L.A Hart explains a right as a legally protected choice to decide on the performance of a correlative duty by whoever he has a claim on.
Philosophers of language have claimed that rights are best explained as speech acts involving a demand presupposed to be justified by a owner of a right to the effect that his right be effectuated or acted according to by whover is presupposed to have the duty to guarantee this right.
Claim-rights of A involve legislation obliging another party B to satisfy these rights.
Liberty-rights of A involve the absence of the right in another party B to prevent A in the exercise of that right.
Any statement that "someone A has a right to X" must probably te taken to logically imply that "someone B has a duty concerning X vis-a-vis A".
There are active rights for A to do something, and passive rights for R to have done something to him. The passive rights have a clearer link to specific duty or obligation for someone B to do to A what A has a right to have done to him.
C. Arnold (Analyses or right) argues that the notions of rights and duties are mutually reducible to each other.
Compare the notions of LEFT and RIGHT. A is to the LEFT of B exactly when B is to the RIGHT of A. Thus essentially we do not need both concepts and we can make do with either one of them. Similarly for the concepts of rights and duties/obligations.
If one considers non-persons like animals and even landscapes as possessors of rights, then there are rights which do not in any way involve or imply underlying speech acts of agents.
LEX "written law", and
IUS "1. "principles of justice as (partly) embodied in laws"; 2. "right, privilege, just claim". A law may confer legal rights. Rights without a basis in written law are natural rights.
FAS "divine right, divine justice".
It is this second meaning of IUS that is relevant under our synonym group RIGHT. Thus in ancient Rome we have iura populi "the legal rights of the people", ius civitatis "rights of citizenship", ius libertatis "freedom rights", iura muliebria "women's rights". Crucial for the history of property was the ius retinendi "the right to continue to have what one owns". There also was the important ius suffragii "the right to vote in an assembly". In later times, there was, for example, the notorious ius primae noctis "the right to spend the first night with the newly-wed bride".
The IUS of a person is his or her legal standing with respect to specific rights. Thus one can have or not have IUS "legal standing" in Latin, and one can be sui iuris "of legally independent status, legally free to act".
According to Hobbes, Leviatan p. 86, the lex imposes obligations whereas the the ius conveys liberties.
A IUS could be moribus constitutum "customary", or statutory.
One category of rights that is of crucial importance is that of ius nudum "naked rights, i.e. rights without a remedy, rights which one has but which are unenforcable".
Among enforcable rights a crucial distinction is between real rights which were enforced by actio in rem "action concerning the matter at issue" and personal rights which were enforcable by actio in personam "measures taken regarding the person (whose duty it is to fulfill the right)".
Note that in Latin, as in modern Chinese, the word for power, POTESTAS, can also be used to refer to a rightful power, i.e. a right to do something.
In English, the distinction between LAW and RIGHT is discussed in Owen Barfield's classic History in English Words, ed. 1985 p. 53: "Thus our useful distinction between law and right was once geographical rather than semantic, the two words covering roughly the eastern and the western halves of England."
Jeremy Bentham explained rights as originating from duties imposed by a legislator on a society with the intention of benefiting a persons or groups of persons. This definition or explanation is useful, but clearly too broad.
H.L.A Hart explains a right as a legally protected choice to decide on the performance of a correlative duty by whoever he has a claim on.
Philosophers of language have claimed that rights are best explained as speech acts involving a demand presupposed to be justified by a owner of a right to the effect that his right be effectuated or acted according to by whover is presupposed to have the duty to guarantee this right.
Claim-rights of A involve legislation obliging another party B to satisfy these rights.
Liberty-rights of A involve the absence of the right in another party B to prevent A in the exercise of that right.
Any statement that "someone A has a right to X" must probably te taken to logically imply that "someone B has a duty concerning X vis-a-vis A".
There are active rights for A to do something, and passive rights for R to have done something to him. The passive rights have a clearer link to specific duty or obligation for someone B to do to A what A has a right to have done to him.
C. Arnold (Analyses or right) argues that the notions of rights and duties are mutually reducible to each other.
Compare the notions of LEFT and RIGHT. A is to the LEFT of B exactly when B is to the RIGHT of A. Thus essentially we do not need both concepts and we can make do with either one of them. Similarly for the concepts of rights and duties/obligations.
If one considers non-persons like animals and even landscapes as possessors of rights, then there are rights which do not in any way involve or imply underlying speech acts of agents.
Modern Chinese Criteria
權利
權力
權力
- History in English Words
(
BARFIELD 1953)
p.
53 - Vocabulaire européen des philosophies. Dictionnaire des intraduisibles
(
CASSIN 2004)
p.
700 - Taking Rights Seriously ( DWORKIN 1977) p.
- Fundamental Legal Conceptions ( HOHFELD 1919) p.
- Historisches Woerterbuch der Philosophie
(
RITTER 1971-2007)
p.
8.230 - Rights and Right Conduct ( MELDON 1959) p.
- Enzyklopaedie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie ( MITTELSTRASS 1996) p.
- Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities
(
PECK 1965)
p.
901 - Dictionnaire culturel en langue francaise
(
REY 2005)
p.
2.209 - Historisches Woerterbuch der Philosophie
(
RITTER 1971-2007)
p.
8.233 RECHT, POSITIVES
- An Analysis of Rights ( STOLJAR 1984) p.
- Theories of Rights ( WALDRON 1984) p.
- Key Concepts in Chinese Philosophy
(
ZHANG DAINIAN 2002)
p.
364 - The Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( BORCHERT 2005) p.
- SYNONYMES FRANÇOIS, LEURS DIFFÉRENTES SIGNIFICATIONS, ET LE CHOIX QU'IL EN FAUT FAIRE Pour parler avec justesse
(
GIRARD 1769)
p.
1.375.329 PREROGATIVE. PRIVILEGE
Words
Existing SW for
Here are Syntactic Words already defined in the database:
Searching Wikidata
Type: