Moral rights are personality rights that link the creator of a work to his work. Unlike absolute rights, rights whose claims can be balanced by moral considerations are called prima facie rights – from the Latin „at first sight”. Most rights are prima facie. For example, the right to travel freely, the right to own property, the right to drive, the right to be served afterwards (if you`ve been standing in line) are all rights that can rightly be overridden in certain circumstances. Of course, circumstances that might give rise to a kind of prima facie right may be common to a kind of prima facie right, but may be rare in others. To say that a right is prima facie and not absolute means that there may be other considerations that outweigh the right in a particular case. If the claim of a right is not fulfilled, it is customary to say that the claim (and the right) is violated. For example, if A refuses to hand over B`s car keys to B because B is too drunk to drive or is under the influence of drugs that seriously impair his ability to drive, B`s driver`s licence has been violated. When a moral injustice is committed by violating a right (i.e.
when there are insufficient moral grounds to violate the law), it is said to be violated. If A refuses to hand over B`s car keys simply because A is in an awkward mood, A has violated B`s right to use his property. Kant`s principle is often used to justify a fundamental moral right, the right to decide freely for oneself, and the rights associated with this fundamental right, sometimes referred to as negative rights or liberty rights. Negative rights, such as the right to privacy, the right not to be killed, or the right to do whatever you want with your property, are rights that protect some form of human freedom. These rights are called negative rights because everyone imposes a negative duty on us – the duty not to interfere in a person`s activities in a particular area. The right to privacy, for example, imposes on us the duty not to interfere with an individual`s private activities. People talk about both legal and moral rights. Although attempts are often made to give moral rights the force of law by making them a legal right, moral rights must be distinguished from legal rights. It is not a contradiction to say that a person has the legal right to do something, but not the moral right to do it, or to claim that certain laws are unjust. Laws that treated slaves as property violated the moral rights of those who were slaves.
The argument used to justify slavery in the United States was that the Constitution only guaranteed rights to citizens. The law does not recognize slaves as citizens and therefore does not grant them civil rights, that is, the legal rights of citizens. In addition, the law considered slaves to be the property of others. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stated that former slaves are citizens and that all citizens have the right to life, liberty, and property (although only men have the right to vote), and that naturalized citizens have the same rights as Native Americans. That same year, 1868, Burlin`s Treaty of Play was signed. He denied the possibility of naturalization of Chinese Americans, even though he allowed free immigration between China and the United States. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first federal law to prevent the immigration of a particular ethnic group to the United States, and it was not repealed until 1943. A constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote was passed in 1920. Civil rights laws of 1964-65 prohibit all forms of discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and national origin.
Legal rights refer to a set of rights formulated by a government`s legal system. They are granted to citizens of that particular state as privileges. It is therefore these freedoms or the protection of individuals created by laws. Therefore, they are assigned to a person by the legislation of a country. Similarly, they may be amended, repealed and restricted by the same Acts. Positive rights to health care and education are often considered fundamental human rights. The nature and scope of a right to health care is widely debated in the United States today. Many people also claim that everyone has the right to basic education, and in fact, public education in the United States is required by law for everyone. Recent legislation reaffirms the right of persons with disabilities to education in the least restrictive environment possible. This amendment shows how views on the scope of these rights are evolving.
Civil rights are moral rights of citizens as such. In moral and political philosophy, they are often defined more broadly than the rights that constitute free and equal citizenship in a liberal democracy. Often, the right of one party is accompanied by an obligation of another party that has a certain relationship with the first party. Rights and duties have moral rules. For example, the patient`s right to refuse treatment and the health care provider`s obligation not to treat a patient without informed consent are consistent with the rule „do not treat a patient without the informed consent of that patient.” An engineer`s obligation to keep a client`s privileged information confidential is consistent with the rule contained in the codes of ethics of many engineering firms: keep the business affairs of a client or employer confidential. Let us recall the previous definition of negative and positive rights. Would the obligation not to disclose a client`s privileged information be a negative or positive obligation? Another difference between human rights and moral rights is their formulation and origin. Human rights and moral rights are universal and timeless, and they are not formulated by laws or statutes, but documented by people for specific statutes and constitutions, while legal rights are not universal.
Legal rights vary from nation to nation and person to person, and they are created and formulated by the legislature of states/countries. Nevertheless, the protection and recognition of human rights also varies from country to country, although many countries already claim to recognize human rights through their constitutions, statutes or international treaties. This distinction stems from the way in which these rights are protected and protected in practice. Many legal rights must be accompanied by a condition of possession or exercise. This in itself does not distinguish legal rights from many moral rights. Just as you are only entitled to legal compensation for bodily injury if you have been attacked, you are only entitled to an excuse to be offended if you have been offended. But legal rights can lead to more complicated situations that rarely occur in morality. One of the main tasks of legal systems is to provide remedies for violations (or sometimes expected violations) of the primary rights they confer. Thus, if someone is injured by the negligence of others, a claim for damages usually arises.
If he is killed, his family members can have an independent claim for compensation, etc. Other types of remedies may include injunctions requiring the guilty party to enforce or refrain from taking a particular course of action, very often what it was or was not required to do under primary law. These rights are often very complex in detail. For example, the amount of damages may be different if the tort is tortious, as opposed to a breach of contract. Similarly, in many systems, some remedies must be granted by law, while others are left to the discretion of the court. To illustrate the remedies available in both British legal systems, see Lawson (1980) and Walker (1974). This leads to another defining characteristic: legal rights often vary from nation to nation and within the same nation at different times. For example, Americans` legal rights to religious freedom and a trial by a jury of peers are not universal among all nations. And the right to vote that blacks and women have in America today is the same right that has been systematically denied to them throughout the history of our nations.
In most modern legal systems, certain fundamental rights are conferred by the Constitution. This usually gives them some precedence over competing legal considerations, but it can vary from system to system. Sometimes constitutional rights take absolute precedence over any other consideration that is not itself based on a constitutional right. Sometimes they will prefer a single legal result and not another without dictating it. Constitutions will also vary depending on whether certain rights are „enshrined” or not. Consecration may be absolute, in which case rights cannot be revoked or modified by any constitutional means (as is the case with some of the „fundamental rights” of the German Constitution), or it may be relative and require only a more onerous procedure than normal legislation (as in the case of the United States Constitution). Therefore, the origin of human rights is the creation of laws and statutes, etc. In addition, there is a close connection between religious and ethical codes and moral rights, for morality is defined by the religious and moral teachings of humanity that create the system of ethics in human societies.