Is there a word for this? One person's rights expressed in terms of another person's rights.
April 25, 2007 10:09 AM Subscribe
I want to describe something and I can't think of a good term for it. What should I call rights that "really" belong to one person or other entity, but which are expressed in relation to another person or entity? E.g., someone might not want to say that animals have a right to freedom, so he says that freeing animals protects the right of humans to avoid psychological distress. Rather than say that illegal immigrants have a right to free immunizations, he might say that the immunizations protect the rights of citizens to avoid epidemics.
Is there a word for this?
this may not quite be what you want, but in legal/political theory there is a distinction between "negative rights" and "positive rights"... "negative" rights are the more classically understood ones as protecting an individual from interference -- for example, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.. the classic example is that freedom of speech "forbids interference but does not compel the distribution of megaphones".
in contrast, "positive" rights speak of a freedom to something rather, and often take the form of economic rights (and are thus often more controversial) -- so the right to clean air, or the right to a sufficient wage or standard of living etc...
so in your examples, you could describe them as positive rights -- the public has the positive right to a health, and this means the government has the RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that immunization programs occur and are effective.
posted by modernnomad at 10:23 AM on April 25, 2007
in contrast, "positive" rights speak of a freedom to something rather, and often take the form of economic rights (and are thus often more controversial) -- so the right to clean air, or the right to a sufficient wage or standard of living etc...
so in your examples, you could describe them as positive rights -- the public has the positive right to a health, and this means the government has the RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that immunization programs occur and are effective.
posted by modernnomad at 10:23 AM on April 25, 2007
failure to preview kicks me again!
posted by modernnomad at 10:24 AM on April 25, 2007
posted by modernnomad at 10:24 AM on April 25, 2007
I would call this an argument by proxy. You have an outcome that you wish to occur, but instead of using the most logical argument to achieve that outcome, you substitute another argument (the proxy) that will lead to the same outcome.
Alternatively, a slightly more pejorative term might simply be misdirection.
posted by googly at 10:37 AM on April 25, 2007
Alternatively, a slightly more pejorative term might simply be misdirection.
posted by googly at 10:37 AM on April 25, 2007
rationalizing
posted by Salvatorparadise at 10:57 AM on April 25, 2007
posted by Salvatorparadise at 10:57 AM on April 25, 2007
Best answer: I believe this is a widely used concept, but it's an enlargement of self-interest, rather than seeing inherent rights in something else. Thus it is often called enlightened self-interest in ethics
If arguments from enlightened self-interest politically manifest themselves in rights, these rights will not differ in kind from other rights.
Another, related notion, is derivative rights, in which something gets a set of rights because of the care that other moral agents show for it. Examples would be pets, (for some) fetuses before viability, great works of art, and so on. But these are extensions of moral agents' rights -- they are specifically claimed not to inhere in the objects themselves. (Of course, plenty of people believe that fetuses, animals, and works of art have non-derivative rights. Derivative rights are for those want to deny these kinds of things rights, yet insist that we treat them with more respect than other things without rights.)
posted by ontic at 11:11 AM on April 25, 2007
If arguments from enlightened self-interest politically manifest themselves in rights, these rights will not differ in kind from other rights.
Another, related notion, is derivative rights, in which something gets a set of rights because of the care that other moral agents show for it. Examples would be pets, (for some) fetuses before viability, great works of art, and so on. But these are extensions of moral agents' rights -- they are specifically claimed not to inhere in the objects themselves. (Of course, plenty of people believe that fetuses, animals, and works of art have non-derivative rights. Derivative rights are for those want to deny these kinds of things rights, yet insist that we treat them with more respect than other things without rights.)
posted by ontic at 11:11 AM on April 25, 2007
"Subrogation" works as a specific example of enforcing another's rights, but perhaps not exactly in the sense your examples elicit. Most typically used in the insurance industry context (in the US, anyway).
posted by GPF at 11:25 AM on April 25, 2007
posted by GPF at 11:25 AM on April 25, 2007
I believe that in psychology terms that would be transference, or possibly a sort of reverse projection. Just a thought.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:43 AM on April 25, 2007
posted by iamkimiam at 11:43 AM on April 25, 2007
Looking at this not in terms of rights but simply in terms of arguing style, this is recasting the debate in terms that your counterpart will not be able to disagree with as easily.
As a rhetorical device, you might call it a heterogenium, although I'm not entirely happy with that.
posted by adamrice at 11:49 AM on April 25, 2007
As a rhetorical device, you might call it a heterogenium, although I'm not entirely happy with that.
posted by adamrice at 11:49 AM on April 25, 2007
I definitely agree with ontic - it's an appeal to enlightened self-interest. It's like telling the rich that if they don't provide for the poor, society will stop functioning and they will no longer be able to enjoy the benefits of their wealth.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:01 PM on April 25, 2007
posted by ludwig_van at 2:01 PM on April 25, 2007
Uh, "getting standing?" See: every environmental court case ever.
posted by salvia at 6:23 PM on April 25, 2007
posted by salvia at 6:23 PM on April 25, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by demiurge at 10:19 AM on April 25, 2007