"Right" redirects here. For other uses see Right (disambiguation). Rights Theoretical distinctions Natural and legal rights Claim rights and liberty rights Negative and positive rights Individual and group rights Human rights divisions Three generations Civil and political Economic social and cultural Rights claimants Animals  Humans Women  Men Fathers  Mothers Children  Youth  Students Indigenes  Minorities  LGBT Other groups of rights Authors'  Digital  Labor Linguistic  Reproductive v d e

Rights are legal social or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system social convention or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics especially theories of justice and deontology.

Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization being regarded as established pillars of society and culture and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. The connection between rights and struggle cannot be overstated rights are not as much granted or endowed as they are fought for and claimed and the essence of struggles past and ancient are encoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulations. Contents 1 Etymology 2 A wide variety of meanings 2.1 Natural rights versus legal rights 2.2 Claim rights versus liberty rights 2.3 Positive rights versus negative rights 2.4 Individual rights versus group rights 2.5 Other senses 3 Rights and politics 4 History of rights 5 See also 6 References 7 External links Etymology

The Modern English word right derives from Old English riht or reht in turn from Proto-Germanic *ritaz meaning "right" or "direct" and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *reg-to- meaning "having moved in a straight line" in turn from *(o)reg'(a)- meaning "to straighten or direct".1 In several different Indo-European languages a single word derived from the same root means both "right" and "law" such as French droit2 Spanish derecho3 and German recht.4

Many other words related to normative or regulatory concepts derive from this same root including correct5 regulate6 and rex7 (meaning "king") whence regal8 and thence royal.9 Likewise many more geometric terms derive from this same root such as erect (as in "upright")10 rectangle (literally "right angle")11 straight12 and stretch.13 Like right the English words rule14 and ruler15 deriving still from the same root have both normative or regulatory and geometric meanings (e.g. a ruler as in a king or a ruler as in a straightedge).

Several other roots have similar normative and geometric descendants such as Latin norma16 whence norm17 normal18 and normative19 itself and also geometric concepts such as surface normals; and likewise Greek ortho20 and Latin ordo21 meaning either "right" or "correct" (as in orthodox meaning "correct opinion"22) or "straight" or "perpendicular" (as in orthogonal meaning "perpendicular angle"23) and thence order24 ordinary25 etc. A wide variety of meanings Rights are widely regarded as the basis of law but what if laws are bad Some theorists suggest civil disobedience is itself a right and it was advocated by thinkers such as Henry David Thoreau Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.

There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes with different and sometimes opposing definitions and the precise definition of this principle beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another is controversial.

One way to get an idea of the multiple understandings and senses of the term is to consider different ways it is used. Many diverse things are claimed as rights: A right to life a right to choose; a right to vote to work to strike; a right to one phone call to dissolve parliament to operate a forklift to asylum to equal treatment before the law to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist to sentence an offender to death to launch a nuclear first strike to carry a concealed weapon to a distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one's own eyes to pronounce the couple husband and wife to be left alone to go to hell in one's own way.26

There are likewise diverse possible ways to categorize rights such as: Who is alleged to have the right: Children's rights animal rights workers' rights states' rights the rights of peoples. What actions or states or objects the asserted right pertains to: Rights of free expression to pass judgment; rights of privacy to remain silent; property rights bodily rights. Why the rightholder (allegedly) has the right: Moral rights spring from moral reasons legal rights derive from the laws of the society customary rights are aspects of local customs. How the asserted right can be affected by the rightholder's actions: The inalienable right to life the forfeitable right to liberty and the waivable right that a promise be kept.26

There has been considerable debate about what this term means within the academic community particularly within fields such as philosophy law deontology logic and political science. One way to look at different senses of the term of rights is to examine contrasting ideas about the concept. Natural rights versus legal rights According to some views certain rights derive from God or Nature Main article: Natural and legal rights Natural rights are rights which are derived from nature. They are universal; that is they apply to all people and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily inhere in every individual and can't be taken away. For example it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights. Legal rights in contrast are based on a society's customs laws statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship itself is often considered as the basis for having legal rights and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning. Some thinkers see rights in only one sense while others accept that both senses have a measure of validity. There has been considerable philosophical debate about these senses throughout history. For example Jeremy Bentham believed that legal rights were the essence of rights and he denied the existence of natural rights; whereas Thomas Aquinas held that rights purported by positive law but not grounded in natural law were not properly rights at all but only a facade or pretense of rights. Claim rights versus liberty rights A deed is an example of a claim right in the sense that it asserts a right to own land. This particular deed dates back to 1273. Main article: Claim rights and liberty rights A claim right is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder. Somebody else must do or refrain from doing something to or for the claim holder such as perform a service or supply a product for him or her; that is he or she has a claim to that service or product (another term is thing in action). In logic this idea can be expressed as: "Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something." Every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied. This duty can be to act or to refrain from acting. For example many jurisdictions recognize broad claim rights to things like "life liberty and property"; these rights impose an obligation upon others not to assault or restrain a person or use their property without the claim-holder's permission. Likewise in jurisdictions where social welfare services are provided citizens have legal claim rights to be provided with those services. A liberty right or privilege in contrast is simply a freedom or permission for the right-holder to do something and there are no obligations on other parties to do or not do anything. This can be expressed in logic as: "Person A has a privilege to do something if and only if A has no duty not to do that something." For example if a person has a legal liberty right to free speech that merely means that it is not legally forbidden for them to speak freely: it does not mean that anyone has to help enable their speech or to listen to their speech; or even per se refrain from stopping them from speaking though other rights such as the claim right to be free from assault may severely limit what others can do to stop them. Liberty rights and claim rights are the inverse of one another: a person has a liberty right permitting him to do something only if there is no other person who has a claim right forbidding him from doing so. Likewise if a person has a claim right against someone else then that other person's liberty is limited. For example a person has a liberty right to walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so since there is no obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. But pedestrians may have an obligation not to walk on certain lands such as other people's private property to which those other people have a claim right. So a person's liberty right of walking extends precisely to the point where another's claim right limits his or her freedom. Positive rights versus negative rights Main article: Negative and positive rights In one sense a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific service or treatment and these rights have been called positive rights. However in another sense rights may allow or require inaction and these are called negative rights; they permit or require doing nothing. For example in some democracies e.g. the US citizens have the positive right to vote and they have the negative right not to vote; people can stay home and watch television instead if they desire. In other democracies e.g. Australia however citizens have a positive right to vote but they don't have a negative right to not vote since non-voting citizens can be fined. Accordingly: Positive rights are permissions to do things or entitlements to be done unto. One example of a positive right is the purported "right to welfare."27 Negative rights are permissions not to do things or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right as an entitlement to "non-interference" such as a right against being assaulted.27 Though similarly named positive and negative rights should not be confused with active rights (which encompass "privileges" and "powers") and passive rights (which encompass "claims" and "immunities"). Individual rights versus group rights Main article: Individual and group rights The general sense of right is that they are possessed by individuals in the sense that they are permissions and entitlements to do things which other persons or which governments or authorities can not infringe. This is the understanding of thinkers such as Ayn Rand who argued that only individuals have rights according to her philosophy called Objectivism.28 However others have argued that there are situations in which a group of persons is thought to have rights or group rights. Accordingly: Individual rights are rights held by individual people regardless of their group membership or lack thereof. Do groups have rights Some argue that when soldiers bond in combat the group becomes like an organism in itself and has rights which trump the rights of any individual soldier. Group rights have been argued to exist when a group is seen as more than a mere composite or assembly of separate individuals but an entity in its own right. In other words it's possible to see a group as a distinct being in and of itself; it's akin to an enlarged individual which has a distinct will and power of action and can be thought of as having rights. For example a platoon of soldiers in combat can be thought of as a distinct group since individual members are willing to risk their lives for the survival of the group and therefore the group can be conceived as having a "right" which is superior to that of any individual member; for example a soldier who disobeys an officer can be punished perhaps even killed for a breach of obedience. But there is another sense of group rights in which people who are members of a group can be thought of as having specific individual rights because of their membership in a group. In this sense the set of rights which individuals-as-group-members have is expanded because of their membership in a group. For example workers who are members of a group such as a labor union can be thought of as having expanded individual rights because of their membership in the labor union such as the rights to specific working conditions or wages. As expected there is sometimes considerable disagreement about what exactly is meant by the term "group" as well as by the term "group rights." There can be tension between individual and group rights. A classic instance in which group and individual rights clash is conflicts between unions and their members. For example individual members of a union may wish a wage higher than the union-negotiated wage but are prevented from making further requests; in a so-called closed shop which has a union security agreement only the union has a right to decide matters for the individual union members such as wage rates. So do the supposed "individual rights" of the workers prevail about the proper wage Or do the "group rights" of the union regarding the proper wage prevail Clearly this is a source of tension. Other senses Other distinctions between rights draw more on historical association or family resemblance than on precise philosophical distinctions. These include the distinction between civil and political rights and economic social and cultural rights between which the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are often divided. Another conception of rights groups them into three generations. These distinctions have much overlap with that between negative and positive rights as well as between individual rights and group rights but these groupings are not entirely coextensive. Rights and politics In the United States a person who is going to be questioned by police when he or she is in police custody must be read his or her "Miranda rights". The Miranda warning assumes people don't understand what their rights are so it requires police officers to read a statement to people being arrested which informs them that they have certain rights such as the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney. Rights are often included in the foundational questions governments and politics have been designed to deal with. Often the development of these socio-political institutions have formed a dialectical relationship with rights. Rights about particular issues or the rights of particular groups are often areas of special concern. Often these concerns arise when rights come into conflict with other legal or moral issues sometimes even other rights. Issues of concern have historically included labor rights LGBT rights reproductive rights disability rights patient rights and prisoners' rights. With increasing monitoring and the information society information rights such as the right to privacy are becoming more important. Some examples of groups whose rights are of particular concern include animals29 and amongst humans groups such as children30 and youth parents (both mothers and fathers) and men and women.31 Accordingly politics plays an important role in developing or recognizing the above rights and the discussion about which behaviors are included as "rights" is an ongoing political topic of importance. The concept of rights varies with political orientation. Positive rights such as a "right to medical care" are emphasized more often by left-leaning thinkers while right-leaning thinkers place more emphasis on negative rights such as the "right to a fair trial". Further the term equality which is often bound up with the meaning of "rights" often depends on one's political orientation. Conservatives and libertarians and advocates of free markets often identify equality with equality of opportunity and want equal and fair rules in the process of making things while agreeing that sometimes these fair rules lead to unequal outcomes. In contrast socialists often identify equality with equality of outcome and see fairness when people have equal amounts of goods and services and therefore think that people have a right to equal portions of necessities such as health care or economic assistance or housing.32 History of rights See also: History of human rights The Magna Carta or "Great Charter" was one of England's first documents containing commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect certain legal rights. It reduced the power of the monarch. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 in France. The specific enumeration of rights has differed greatly in different periods of history. In many cases the system of rights promulgated by one group has come into sharp and bitter conflict with that of other groups. In the political sphere a place in which rights have historically been an important issue at present the question of who has what legal rights is sometimes addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations. Most historic notions of rights were authoritarian and hierarchical with different people being granted different rights and some having more rights than others. For instance the right 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 which permitted absolute power over subjects did not leave room for many rights to be granted to the subjects themselves.33 In contrast modern conceptions of rights often emphasize liberty and equality as among the most important aspects of rights though conceptions of liberty (e.g. positive or negative) and equality (e.g. of opportunity or of outcome) frequently differ. Important documents in the political history of rights include: The Constitution of Medina (622 AD; Arabia) instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim Jewish and pagan communities of Medina34 establishing freedom of worship for non-Muslims in return for extra taxes (the jizya) the security of women a system for granting protection of individuals and a judicial system. The Magna Carta (1215; England) required the King of England to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law. The Henrician Articles (1573; Poland-Lithuania) or King Henry's Articles were a permanent contract that stated the fundamental principles of governance and constitutional law in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth including the rights of the nobility to elect the king to meet in parliament whose approval was required to levy taxes and declare war or peace to religious liberty and the right to rebel in case the king transgressed against the laws of the republic or the rights of the nobility. The Bill of Rights (1689; England) declared that Englishmen as embodied by Parliament possess certain civil and political rights; the Claim of Right (1689; Scotland) was similar but distinct. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789; France) was one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution defining a set of individual rights and collective rights of the people. The United States Bill of Rights (17891791; United States) the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution specified rights of individuals in which government could not interfere including the rights of free assembly freedom of religion trial by jury and so forth. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is an over-arching set of standards by which governments organisations and individuals would measure their behaviour towards each other. The preamble declares that the "...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom justice and peace in the world..." The European Convention on Human Rights (1950; Europe) was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) is a follow-up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights concerning civil and political rights. The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (1966) is another follow-up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights concerning economic social and cultural rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982; Canada) was created to protect the rights of Canadian citizens from actions and policies of all levels of government. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) is one of the most recent proposed legal instruments concerning human rights. See also Outline of rights Contractual rights Constitutionalism Constitutional economics Rule according to higher law Deed Droit Duty Equal rights Exclusive rights Freedom Freedom of religion Freedom of speech Freedom of the press Fundamental Laws of England Inheritance Jurisprudence Law Law of obligations Social contract Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld Organisations: Amnesty International Human Rights Watch United States Commission on Civil Rights References wikt:right wikt:droit wikt:derecho wikt:recht wikt:correct wikt:regulate wikt:rex#latin wikt:regal wikt:royal wikt:erect wikt:rectangle wikt:straight wikt:stretch wikt:rule wikt:ruler wikt:norma#latin wikt:norm wikt:normal wikt:normative wikt:ortho wikt:ordo wikt:orthodox wikt:orthogonal wikt:order wikt:ordinary a b "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Stanford University. July 9 2007. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/. Retrieved 2009-12-21. "Rights dominate most modern understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Rights structure the forms of our governments the contents of our laws and the shape of morality as we perceive it. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority and so to endorse a certain view of what may must and must not be done."  a b "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Stanford University. July 9 2007. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/. Retrieved 2009-12-21. "A distinction between negative and positive rights is popular among some normative theorists especially those with a bent toward libertarianism. The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-interference while the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service. A right against assault is a classic example of a negative right while a right to welfare assistance is a prototypical positive right."  Ayn Rand (2009-12-18). "The Virtue of Selfishness: Individual Rights". The Ayn Rand Lexicon. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualrights.html. Retrieved 2009-12-18. "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). see page 104. See also: Collectivized 'Rights"  Kate Pickert (Mar. 09 2009). "Undercover Animal-Rights Investigator". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/08599188374200.html. Retrieved 2009-12-21. "One of the most powerful tools animal-rights activists have is the video footage shot inside places like poorly run dog kennels animal-testing facilities and factory farms used as grim evidence of the brutality that can take place. But how do animal-rights crusaders actually get those videos"  Victoria Burnett (July 26 2007). "Human Rights Watch says migrant children are at risk in Canary Islands". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/europe/26iht-abuse.4.6849724.html. Retrieved 2009-12-21. ""They must immediately come up with a plan to close these centers" Simone Troller author of the report and a childrens' rights researcher for Human Rights Watch in Europe said in a telephone interview. "While these centers continue to exist we believe children continue to be at risk.""  "Soap Operas Boost Rights Global Economist Says". NPR. October 21 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.phpstoryId113870313. Retrieved 2009-12-21. "Many of these locally produced programs feature strong female characters. When Rede Globo began broadcasting in its native Brazil in 1965 the average woman had about six children now the average woman has no children or one child."  John E. Roemer (December 14 2005). "Roemer on equality of opportunity". New Economist. http://neweconomist.blogs.com/neweconomist/2005/12/roemeronequal.html. Retrieved 2009-12-21. "Equality of opportunity is to be contrasted with equality of outcome. While advocacy of the latter has been traditionally associated with a left-wing political philosophy the former has been championed by conservative political philosophy. Equality of outcome fails to hold individuals responsible for imprudent actions that may absent redress reduce the values of the outcomes they enjoy or for wise actions that would raise the value of the outcomes above the levels of others. Equality of opportunity in contrast levels the playing field so that all have the potential to achieve the same outcomes; whether or not in the event they do depends upon individual choice."  "Divine Right of Kings". BBC. 2007-10-11. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime20071011.shtml. Retrieved 2009-12-21. "The idea that a monarch could heal with his touch flowed from the idea that a king was sacred appointed by God and above the judgment of earthly powers. It was called the Divine Right of Kings and it entered so powerfully into British culture during the 17th century that it shaped the pomp and circumstance of the Stuart monarchs imbued the writing of Shakespeare and provoked the political thinking of Milton and Locke."  R. B. Serjeant The Sunnah Jami'ah pacts with the Yathrib Jews and the Tahrim of Yathrib: Analysis and translation of the documents comprised in the so-called "Constitution of Medina." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies University of London Vol. 41 No. 1. (1978) page 4. External links Look up right in Wiktionary the free dictionary. Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Rights Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article by Leif Wenar. WikiEd - Teacher's Rights International Freedom of Expression Exchange Comparative Analysis of Human Rights v d eRights theory Natural and legal rights  Claim rights and liberty rights  Negative and positive rights  Individual and group rights Natural law  Positive law  Sovereign states  Universal jurisdiction  Equality before the law  Social contract v d eSocial and political philosophy Related articles Philosophy of economics  Philosophy of education  Philosophy of history  Jurisprudence  Philosophy of social science  Philosophy of love  Philosophy of sex Social concepts Society  War  Law  Justice  Peace  Rights  Revolution  Civil disobedience  Democracy  Social contract  more... Social theories Anarchism  Authoritarianism  Conservatism  Liberalism  Libertarianism  National liberalism  Socialism  Utilitarianism  Conflict theory  Consensus theory Philosophers Plato  Augustine  Marsilius  Machiavelli  Grotius  Montesquieu  Comte  Bosanquet  Spencer  Malebranche  Durkheim  Santayana  Royce  Confucius  Hobbes  Leibniz  Hume  Kant  Rousseau  Locke  Burke  Smith  Bentham  Mill  Thoreau  Marx  Gandhi  Gentile  Maritain  Berlin  Schmitt  Debord  Camus  Sartre  Foucault  Rawls  Popper  ilas  Habermas  Kirk  Oakeshott  Nozick  Alinsky  Chomsky  Baudrillard  Badiou  Strauss  Rand  iek  Walzer Portal  Category  Task Force  Discussion  Changes v d eEthics Related articles Applied ethics  Normative ethics  Meta-ethics  Descriptive ethics  Medical ethics  Professional ethics Concepts in ethics Freedom  Autonomy  Rights  Conscience  Value  Morality  Responsibility  Care  Justice  Principles  Virtue  Happiness  Norm  Suffering or Pain  Equality  Trust  Free will  Consent  Moral right  Human rights  Just War  Axiology  more... Theories Consequentialism  Deontology  Virtue ethics   Ethics of care Philosophers Plato  Aristotle  Confucius  Mencius  Augustine of Hippo   Thomas Aquinas  Baruch Spinoza  David Hume  Immanuel Kant  Georg W. F. Hegel  Arthur Schopenhauer  Jeremy Bentham  John Stuart Mill  Sren Kierkegaard  Henry Sidgwick  Friedrich Nietzsche  G. E. Moore  Karl Barth  Paul Tillich  Philippa Foot  John Rawls  Bernard Williams  J. L. Mackie  Alasdair MacIntyre  Peter Singer  Derek Parfit  Thomas Nagel   more... Portal  Category  Task Force  Stubs  Discussion v d eJurisprudence Related articles: Law  Political philosophy  more... Concepts in law Justice  Legal system  Judicial interpretation  Rational-legal authority  Rights Theories of law Analytical jurisprudence  Deontological ethics  Legal moralism  Legal positivism  Legal realism  Libertarian theories of law  Maternalism  Natural law  Paternalism  Utilitarianism  Virtue jurisprudence Philosophers of law Alexy  Allan  Amar  Aquinas  Aristotle  Austin  Beccaria  Bentham  Betti  Bickel  Blackstone  Bobbio  Bork  Castanheira Neves  Chafee  Coleman  Del Vecchio  Derrida  Durkheim  Dworkin  Ehrlich  Feinberg  Feldman  Finnis  Fuller  Gardner  George  Green  Grisez  Grotius  Gurvitch  Habermas  Hand  Hart  Hayek  Hegel  Hohfeld  Holmes  Kant  Kelsen  Kchler  Kramer  Llewellyn  Luhmann  Lyons  MacCormick  Marx  Olivecrona  Petrazycki  Posner  Pound  Radbruch  Rawls  Raz  Reinach  Renner  Savigny  Scaevola  Schmitt  Simmonds  Tribe  Unger  Waldron  Weber Category  Portals: (Law  Philosophy)  WikiProjects: (Law  Philosophy)  Changes