Against the Will Theory of Rights
This paper recasts an old objection to the will theory in the light of recent attempts to defend that theory, notably by Nigel Simmonds and Hillel Steiner. It enlists the idea of duties of care—effectively restrictions over legal officials’ discretionary exercise of powers—to form a dilemma for such theorists: either legal officials’ discretion over powers is restricted by duties of care for the unempowerable, or it is not. If their discretion is unrestricted, then the will theory is insensitive to the (values of the) lives of the unempowerable, in virtue of the fact that these lives are viewed as not meriting direct normative consideration. If, on the other hand, their discretion is restricted by duties of care, then the will theory has no argumentative resources within its conceptual apparatus to ascribe or justify them. It is therefore incomplete as a theory of rights.
|Keywords||Theories of rights Legal rights Hillel Steiner|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11158-010-9134-y, hdl.handle.net/1765/119529|
|Journal||Res Publica : A journal of Moral, Legal and Political Philosophy|
Vrousalis, N. (2010). Against the Will Theory of Rights. Res Publica : A journal of Moral, Legal and Political Philosophy. doi:10.1007%2Fs11158-010-9134-y