We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
ON CONFLICTS BETWEEN RIGHTS.
- Authors
Wellman, Christopher Heath
- Abstract
This article discusses the conflicts between rights. The literature on rights includes three prominent views: the specification approach, the prima facie theory, and a third view offered by Joel Feinberg. The specification view avoids the contradiction by denying. Specificationists insist that rights are absolute, deny that they are universally general, and therefore resolve the conflict by denying the existence of the second right. Often a specificationist conceives of a right as being a single advantage that holds absolutely over all second parties except in cases enumerated in the rights disjunctive list of exceptive clauses. The prima facie view, on the other hand, avoids the contradiction by denying. Prima facie theory alleges that a right is an advantage that exists on the face of things. Prima facie theorists claim that rights are universal but lack absoluteness. This approach entails that a right has universal applicability but is liable to being overridden in certain circumstances. Finally, Feinberg seems to be specificationist in his rejection of the prima facie view, but also suggests that rights need not conflict. Among the three, specification seems the best resolution to the contradiction of rights conflicts.
- Subjects
RIGHTS; FEINBERG, Joel, 1926-2004; CONFLICT of laws; CONTRADICTION; PHILOSOPHY
- Publication
Law & Philosophy, 1995, Vol 14, Issue 3/4, p271
- ISSN
0167-5249
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1007/BF01000702