I've always been taught that to be considered a "Right", an activity or behavior must meet the following two conditions:
1_It must be equally available to all persons.
2_It must impose no positive obligation on another person.
Does anyone know who set down this definition?
2007-10-17 05:17:04 · 2 answers · asked by Ursa 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No -- that is not the legal definition of "rights".
Legally, a right is something (an activity) that cannot be significantly restricted or prohibited by the govt.
It is very common legally for rights to extend to some people and not others -- for example, citizens can vote, non-citizens cannot. Homeowners have certain rights regarding their property that renters or trespassers do not. And rights can easily vary by county and state.
And its very common for rights to include obligations that others must act (or refrain from acting) a certain way. Again, homeowners can have rights that impose affirmative obligations on anyone coming onto their property.
The definition you gave is one from some formal ethics code -- and it's generally a good approach to take when creating a system for legal rights. But as a matter of law, neither of those is required for something to be considered a legal right.
2007-10-17 05:36:51 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe it was John Stuart Mill, or possibly Thomas Paine in his seminal work, the Rights of Man.
2007-10-17 05:24:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋