A right is the power or liberty to which a person or a group is justly entitled or a thing to which they have a moral or legal claim. The specific enumeration of rights accorded to citizens has historically differed greatly from one century to the next, and from one regime to another, but nowadays is normally addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations. Rights serve as rules of interaction between people and groups, and, as such, they place constraints or positive obligations on individuals, groups, institutions, and governments.

These rights are variously interpreted. For example, in a given country, a right to free speech may merely mean that the government may not actively engage in censorship, and may apply only to speech that the courts of that country deem political, not, for example, sexually related speech, even in realms that such as a discussion of birth control that other countries might deem political. But, in any case, a right to free speech is generally not interpreted to mean that anyone else has a right to facilitate one's speech. In A.J. Liebling's words, "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." On the other hand, an individual right to healthcare implies an obligation on others to provide that healthcare. Thus, an individual having a right places responsibilities, either negative or positive, on others. (See negative and positive rights and three generations of human rights) Though rights usually refers to individual rights, in certain societies there may be group rights, where all members of a group have certain rights by virtue of being in that group. Contrast with license.

Most modern conceptions of basic rights are universalist and egalitarian; in other words, rights, human rights by their nature, are due in equal measure to all people and civil rights to all people in a given society. However, the concept of group rights in societies that recognize them, accords rights only for some individuals, that may not apply to other individuals who do not belong to that group. (See oligarchy.) A prominent example of this would be South Africa under the former system of apartheid, where whites enjoyed "group rights" not available to others. A power or liberty that is not extended universally (at least in theory) is deemed a privilege under the conception of individual rights. Such rights may be defined in terms of the Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). An individual is expected to respect the rights of others in exchange for the assurance that the others will respect the same rights for him in turn.

By contrast, most pre-modern conceptions of rights were hierarchical, with different people being granted different rights (privileges), and some having more rights than others. For instance, the rights of a father to be respected by his son did not indicate a duty upon the father to return that respect, and the divine right of kings to hold absolute power over their subjects gave monarchs many rights which commoners were not granted.

It is not generally considered necessary that a right should be understood by the holder of that right, thus rights may be agreed on behalf of another, such as children's rights or the rights of people declared mentally incompetent to understand their rights. However, rights must be understood by someone in order to have legal existence, so the understanding of rights is a social prerequisite for the existence of rights. Therefore, educational opportunities within society have a close bearing upon the people's ability to erect adequate rights structures.

There are two fundamental controversies surrounding the notion of moral rights: First, there is the question of the basis for rights (on what basis can rights be said to exist). Second, there is the question of the content of rights (what the rights of a person actually are).

Natural versus legal rights

---

Natural rights (also called moral rights and human rights) are universal rights that are seen as not contingent upon being granted by government. Government may violate a natural right, but in doing so it is not eliminating the existence of that right. For example, if there is a natural right to be free, then a government or person that enslaves an individual is violating an individual's right to liberty rather than eliminating the existence of that right. Hence, natural rights provide a moral justification for condemning actions taken against individuals by governments or other individuals. Those who advocate natural rights hold that there are certain liberties that should not be violated regardless of other considerations. This contrasts with legal positivism which holds that the only rights that can exist are legal rights. To determine whether someone has a legal right is simply a matter of determing what laws have been legislated, whereas determination of a moral right may require philosophical or religious study.

See also

---

• Human rights
• Animal rights
• Gay rights
• Bill of rights
• Jurisprudence
• Law
• Freedom
• Freedom of religion
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of the press
• Social contract
• Claim (patent)

External links

---

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, article by Leif Wenar.
• Human Rights Watch
• Amnesty International
• Teacher's Rights
• International Freedom of Expression Exchange
• U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
• Comparative Analysis of Human Rights

Law | Rights

Dreito | Právo | Recht | Juro | Derecho subjetivo | حقوق (قانونی) | Laki | Droit subjectif | זכות | Diritto | 権利 | Hukuk | Ius | Recht | ئوڭ | Prawo | Direito subjectivo | Drept | Rights | Lag | สิทธิ | hukuk | 权利