Abstract
It is common to invoke the language of rights to demand justice. However, resorting unreflexively to this language does not do good. In this article, I advance two arguments in favor of a more careful consideration of the notion of subjective rights. First, I rely on the distinction between the concept and the conception of a normative notion to specify the sort of investigation needed on the concept of rights and to point out the problems that overlooking it brings for practices of justice vindication. Second, I hold that to say that an individual or a collective has a right means that there are sufficient, albeit not absolute, reasons for someone to be charged to act in a way to contribute to the satisfaction of that right in a reasonable and defined way. This proposal of the concept of right is “independent” insofar as it allows the discussion of alternative conceptions of rights within a democratic society. It also articulates the idea that granting a right always involves considering the way in which duties and responsibilities are allocated within society and how its main institutions should work together.
| Translated title of the contribution | Two Proposals to Argue about Rights |
|---|---|
| Original language | Spanish |
| Pages (from-to) | 335-345 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Las Torres De Lucca |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jul 2022 |
Keywords
- conception
- concept
- rights
- John Rawls
- justice
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Two Proposals to Argue about Rights'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver