...1986, pp. 423-24. 38. Walzer 1989a, p. 41. Chapter Two 1. I have relied on Raz's definition of right: "X has a right if and only if X can have rights and,...(his interest) is a sufficient reason for holding other person(s) under duty" (1986, p. 166). 2. MacDonald 1949, in Waldron 1984, p. 27. 3. This is a...

...recent work on rights is based on the following very plausible definition: " 'x has a right' means that, other things being equal, an aspect of x's well-being...reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty.'"3 The individual interests which are the basis for rights must be important enough to warrant...

...benefit(s)from that relationship".55 I therefore deviate from Raz's formulation that '"x has a right means that, other things being equal, an aspect of x's well-being...reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty"56 because this could be applied consistently with what I take to be an antithetical position...

...rights is to give special weight to some interests in preference to others. As Joseph Raz defines it: "X has a right if and only if X can have rights, and...interest) is a sufficient reason for holding some person(s) to be under a duty."3 Raz's definition, however, does not rule out the importance of protecting...

...person? Joseph Raz suggests an answer. He defines rights as follows: " 'X has a right' if and only if, other things being equal, an aspect of X's well-being...reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty." 1 Rights thus exist only when duties are justified by reference to the well-being of persons...

...claims they are meant to support. This distinction derives from Joseph Raz's definition of rights: "'x has a right' if and only if x can have rights,...reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty" (Raz 1986: 166). A right, according to Raz, provides a reason for holding someone to be under...

...1969], 81-2; first publ. in 1918). 7. See, in particular, Raz (1986, ch. 7); here he says, " 'Xhas a right' if and only if X can have rights, and, other...reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty" (1986: 166). For other examples, see Dworkin (1978: 335-6), MacCormick (1983: 164-5), and Held...

...of rights and his an accompanying principle concerning the capacity to possess rights. Definition: 'x has a right' if and only if x can have rights,...reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty. The Principle of Capacity to have Rights: An individual is capable of having rights if and only...

...itself is unwarranted, at least in Raz's definition of a right, which, you recall, goes as follows: 'X has a right if and only if X can have rights, and,...X's well-being (his interest) is a sufficient reason to hold some other person(s) to be under a duty.'56 Now, it may well be the case that the importance...

...conception of rights I know is the Interest Theory proposed by Joseph Raz, in these terms: Definition: "X has a right" if and only if X can have rights,...reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty. 25 People being the paradigm and most important case of potential right-holders — "Xs that...