权利与利益的模糊关系

Rowan Cruft
{"title":"权利与利益的模糊关系","authors":"Rowan Cruft","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 examines the relation between rights, interests, and desires, focusing on Raz’s and Kramer’s differing Interest Theories and Wenar’s recent Kind-Desire Theory. It argues that none of the theories respect our ability to create rights wherever we wish through law or promising, independently of the interests and desires of the right-holder. It argues nonetheless that Raz’s theory succeeds as a sufficient condition on right-holding, while Kramer’s and Wenar’s distinct theories come very close as necessary conditions. The chapter argues that it is easy to overlook the limitations of the theories because every right creates a circular ‘status desire’ or ‘status interest’ in its own fulfilment, borne by the right-holder in virtue of her status as holding a right.","PeriodicalId":441247,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rights’ Elusive Relation to Interests\",\"authors\":\"Rowan Cruft\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chapter 2 examines the relation between rights, interests, and desires, focusing on Raz’s and Kramer’s differing Interest Theories and Wenar’s recent Kind-Desire Theory. It argues that none of the theories respect our ability to create rights wherever we wish through law or promising, independently of the interests and desires of the right-holder. It argues nonetheless that Raz’s theory succeeds as a sufficient condition on right-holding, while Kramer’s and Wenar’s distinct theories come very close as necessary conditions. The chapter argues that it is easy to overlook the limitations of the theories because every right creates a circular ‘status desire’ or ‘status interest’ in its own fulfilment, borne by the right-holder in virtue of her status as holding a right.\",\"PeriodicalId\":441247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual\",\"volume\":\"8 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/9780198793366.003.0002\",\"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/9780198793366.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

第二章考察了权利、利益和欲望之间的关系,重点介绍了拉兹和克莱默的不同利益理论和韦纳尔最近的“善良-欲望理论”。它认为,这些理论都不尊重我们在任何地方通过法律或承诺创造权利的能力,而不依赖于权利持有人的利益和愿望。尽管如此,它认为Raz的理论作为权利持有的充分条件是成功的,而Kramer和Wenar的不同理论作为必要条件非常接近。本章认为,理论的局限性很容易被忽视,因为每一项权利在其自身的实现中都会产生一种循环的“地位欲望”或“地位利益”,由权利持有人凭借其持有权利的身份承担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rights’ Elusive Relation to Interests
Chapter 2 examines the relation between rights, interests, and desires, focusing on Raz’s and Kramer’s differing Interest Theories and Wenar’s recent Kind-Desire Theory. It argues that none of the theories respect our ability to create rights wherever we wish through law or promising, independently of the interests and desires of the right-holder. It argues nonetheless that Raz’s theory succeeds as a sufficient condition on right-holding, while Kramer’s and Wenar’s distinct theories come very close as necessary conditions. The chapter argues that it is easy to overlook the limitations of the theories because every right creates a circular ‘status desire’ or ‘status interest’ in its own fulfilment, borne by the right-holder in virtue of her status as holding a right.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Rights’ Relation to the First and Second Person Modest Property Rights for the Right-Holder’s Sake Rights’ Elusive Relation to Interests Teleological Groundings of Rights and Duties The Individual’s Place in the Grounding of her Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1