Rights and Demands
A Response to Kamm
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21466019 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Margaret Gilbert (0000-0001-9392-3012, University of California, Irvine, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-12 |
| Publication date | 2025-02-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law and Philosophy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0167-5249 • E-ISSN: 1573-0522 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10982-024-09519-y |
| OpenAlex | W4406110420 |
| Language | EN |
I respond to some questions raised by Frances Kamm with respect to my book Rights and Demands (2018). The book focuses on demand-rights and asks how we accrue them. In other words, how does one accrue the standing to demand an action of someone or rebuke them for non-performance? My response to Kamm emphasizes how I understand “directed duties” in this context. Contrary to the standard practice of rights theorists, I do not start from the assumption that directed duties are constituted by “plain” duties in the context of other factors (about which rights theorists disagree). Rather, I understand my duty to you as the correlative and equivalent of your standing to demand the action in question. I offer a number of further clarifications and conclude by distinguishing the targets of my discussion from other phenomena of interest to moral philosophers, such as complaining and blaming
Comparative law · Duty · Law and economics · Philosophy of law · Political philosophy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Free Will and Agency · History · Law · Political Philosophy and Ethics · War, Ethics, and Justification
| Highly cited | No |
|---|