Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Does Righteous Anger Imply Rights?

anger imply righteous Rights
0
Posted

Does Righteous Anger Imply Rights?

0

Patrick L. McKeeColorado State University “The Existence of Natural Rights.” The Philosophical Forum 7 (Fall 1976): 44–58. Are natural rights valid claims? Do they truly exist? Rights do exist. They are more than shorthand references to social utility, yet less than empirical or intuitively known properties. Rights exist because of their “explanatory” status. Rights are necessary to account for certain common human experiences which otherwise would be inexplicable. For example, consider Paul’s anger because Peter has stolen his coat. What explains this anger? The fact that Paul has a natural right to what was stolen serves as the best explanation of the victim’s experience of anger. Natural rights theory looks upon Paul’s anger as anomalous: all other explanations, except natural rights, won’t account for the anger. Paul’s anger does not become intelligible by referring to the bad results of the theft, or to the psychological or physiological causes of the anger (though these may expla

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.