Hohfeldian权利分析*

Q2 Social Sciences American Journal of Jurisprudence Pub Date : 2018-12-01 DOI:10.1093/AJJ/AUY015
Heidi M. Hurd, M. Moore
{"title":"Hohfeldian权利分析*","authors":"Heidi M. Hurd, M. Moore","doi":"10.1093/AJJ/AUY015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is about Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's famous analysis of one of the most basic concepts used in law and in ethics: the concept of a right. Hohfeld urged that usages of the term \"right\" are ambiguous between two senses of the word: persons have rights to do things and rights to have things done for them. Although Hohfeld died 100 years ago, he remains today one of the world’s most influential legal theorists, and his systematic analysis of the two concepts of a right remains importantly relevant today. This article seeks both to celebrate Hohfeld's achievement exactly a century after his death in October of 1918, and to inspire a new generation’s interest in his work and in the issues that his work timelessly informs. The article thus: (1) systematically explicates the Hohfeldian analysis of rights, explicating both logical extensions of what Hohfeld himself wrote, as well as relations of the Hohfeldian system to the modern deontic logic not available to Hohfeld during his day; (2) defends the Hohfeldian analysis from two forms of criticism popular in the rights literature that have developed over the past century; and (3) critiques the Hohfeldian analysis by rejecting one of its most central tenets and replacing it with an alternative logic of rights that is not vulnerable to this critique. These three tasks correspond to the three major subdivisions of the article. The article concludes with a split verdict on Hohfeld: an acceptance of the Hohfeldian analysis of the rights we have to others doing things for us, and a partial rejection and replacement of the Hohfeldian analysis of the rights we have to do things.","PeriodicalId":39920,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Jurisprudence","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/AJJ/AUY015","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Hohfeldian Analysis of Rights*\",\"authors\":\"Heidi M. Hurd, M. Moore\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/AJJ/AUY015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article is about Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's famous analysis of one of the most basic concepts used in law and in ethics: the concept of a right. Hohfeld urged that usages of the term \\\"right\\\" are ambiguous between two senses of the word: persons have rights to do things and rights to have things done for them. Although Hohfeld died 100 years ago, he remains today one of the world’s most influential legal theorists, and his systematic analysis of the two concepts of a right remains importantly relevant today. This article seeks both to celebrate Hohfeld's achievement exactly a century after his death in October of 1918, and to inspire a new generation’s interest in his work and in the issues that his work timelessly informs. The article thus: (1) systematically explicates the Hohfeldian analysis of rights, explicating both logical extensions of what Hohfeld himself wrote, as well as relations of the Hohfeldian system to the modern deontic logic not available to Hohfeld during his day; (2) defends the Hohfeldian analysis from two forms of criticism popular in the rights literature that have developed over the past century; and (3) critiques the Hohfeldian analysis by rejecting one of its most central tenets and replacing it with an alternative logic of rights that is not vulnerable to this critique. These three tasks correspond to the three major subdivisions of the article. The article concludes with a split verdict on Hohfeld: an acceptance of the Hohfeldian analysis of the rights we have to others doing things for us, and a partial rejection and replacement of the Hohfeldian analysis of the rights we have to do things.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Jurisprudence\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/AJJ/AUY015\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Jurisprudence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/AJJ/AUY015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/AJJ/AUY015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

这篇文章是关于韦斯利·纽科姆·霍菲尔德对法律和伦理中最基本的概念之一的著名分析:权利的概念。霍菲尔德敦促说,“权利”一词的用法在这个词的两个含义之间是模糊的:人有权做事情,也有权为自己做事情。尽管Hohfeld在100年前去世,但他今天仍然是世界上最具影响力的法律理论家之一,他对权利的两个概念的系统分析在今天仍然具有重要意义。这篇文章旨在庆祝霍菲尔德在1918年10月去世整整一个世纪后取得的成就,并激发新一代人对他的作品和他的作品永恒地传达的问题的兴趣。因此,本文:(1)系统地阐述了霍菲尔德对权利的分析,既阐述了霍费尔德本人所写内容的逻辑延伸,也阐述了霍菲尔德体系与现代道义逻辑的关系,这是霍菲尔德当时所不具备的;(2) 从过去一个世纪发展起来的权利文学中流行的两种批评形式来捍卫霍费尔的分析;以及(3)通过拒绝其最核心的原则之一,并用不易受到这种批评的替代权利逻辑来取代它,来批评Hohfeldian分析。这三项任务对应于文章的三个主要部分。文章最后对霍菲尔德做出了不同的裁决:接受了霍菲尔德对他人为我们做事的权利的分析,部分拒绝并取代了霍菲尔德关于我们做事权利的分析。
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
The Hohfeldian Analysis of Rights*
This article is about Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's famous analysis of one of the most basic concepts used in law and in ethics: the concept of a right. Hohfeld urged that usages of the term "right" are ambiguous between two senses of the word: persons have rights to do things and rights to have things done for them. Although Hohfeld died 100 years ago, he remains today one of the world’s most influential legal theorists, and his systematic analysis of the two concepts of a right remains importantly relevant today. This article seeks both to celebrate Hohfeld's achievement exactly a century after his death in October of 1918, and to inspire a new generation’s interest in his work and in the issues that his work timelessly informs. The article thus: (1) systematically explicates the Hohfeldian analysis of rights, explicating both logical extensions of what Hohfeld himself wrote, as well as relations of the Hohfeldian system to the modern deontic logic not available to Hohfeld during his day; (2) defends the Hohfeldian analysis from two forms of criticism popular in the rights literature that have developed over the past century; and (3) critiques the Hohfeldian analysis by rejecting one of its most central tenets and replacing it with an alternative logic of rights that is not vulnerable to this critique. These three tasks correspond to the three major subdivisions of the article. The article concludes with a split verdict on Hohfeld: an acceptance of the Hohfeldian analysis of the rights we have to others doing things for us, and a partial rejection and replacement of the Hohfeldian analysis of the rights we have to do things.
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
American Journal of Jurisprudence
American Journal of Jurisprudence Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Practical Reason and Private Law: Some Sketches Specifying Interpersonal Responsibilities in Private Law: Property Perspectives Public-Private Drift and the Shattering Polity NDAs: A Study in Rights, Wrongs, and Civil Recourse Poverty and Private Law: Beyond Distributive Justice
×
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