Editing Rights (section)

==Types of rights==

===Natural versus legal===
[[File:Brueghel Jan II God creating.jpg|thumb|right|alt=painting of dark gray skies with trees and water, and a human image, flying, with arms outstretched|According to some views, certain rights derive from [[deities]] or [[nature]].]]
{{Main|Natural and legal rights}}
* '''Natural rights''' are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from [[human nature]] or from the [[divine command theory|edicts of a god]]. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and cannot be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural ''right to life''. These are sometimes called ''moral rights'' or ''inalienable rights''.
* '''Legal rights''', in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, [[statute]]s or actions by [[legislature]]s. An example of a legal right is the ''right to vote'' of citizens. [[Citizenship]], itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called ''[[civil rights]]'' or ''statutory rights'' and are culturally and politically [[moral relativism|relative]] since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.

Some thinkers see rights in only one sense while others accept that both senses have a measure of validity. There has been considerable philosophical debate about these senses throughout history. For example, [[Jeremy Bentham]] believed that legal rights were the essence of rights, and he denied the existence of natural rights,<ref>{{cite book |last=Harrison |first=Ross |chapter-url=http://www.utilitarian.net/bentham/about/1995----.htm |chapter=Jeremy Bentham |editor-last=Honderich |editor-first=Ted |title=The Oxford Companion to Philosophy |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1995 |pages=85–88 |access-date=2012-12-01 |archive-date=2017-01-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129162828/http://www.utilitarian.net/bentham/about/1995----.htm |url-status=dead }} Also see {{cite encyclopedia |last=Sweet |first=William |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/bentham.htm |title=Jeremy Bentham |encyclopedia=The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=11 April 2001 |access-date=7 January 2011 }}</ref> whereas [[Thomas Aquinas]] held that rights purported by [[positive law]] but not grounded in [[natural law]] were not properly rights at all, but only a facade or pretense of rights.

===Claim versus liberty===
{{Main|Claim rights and liberty rights}}
* A '''claim right''' is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder. Somebody else must do or refrain from doing something to or for the ''claim holder'', such as perform a service or supply a product for him or her; that is, he or she has a ''claim'' to that service or product (another term is ''[[thing in action]]'').<ref name="IEP">{{Cite web|title=Human Rights {{!}} Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=https://iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/|access-date=2020-11-14|language=en-US}}</ref> In logic, this idea can be expressed as: "Person ''A'' has a claim that person ''B'' do something if and only if ''B'' has a duty to ''A'' to do that something." Every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied. This duty can be to act or to refrain from acting. For example, many jurisdictions recognize broad claim rights to things like "life, liberty, and property"; these rights impose an obligation upon others ''not'' to assault or restrain a person, or use their property, without the claim-holder's permission. Likewise, in jurisdictions where social welfare services are guaranteed, citizens have legal claim rights to be provided with those services.
* A '''liberty right''' or ''privilege'', in contrast, is simply a freedom or permission for the right-holder to do something, and there are ''no obligations'' on other parties to do or not do anything.<ref name="IEP" /> This can be expressed in logic as: "Person ''A'' has a privilege to do something if and only if ''A'' has no duty not to do that something." For example, if a person has a legal liberty right to free speech, that merely means that it is not legally forbidden for them to speak freely: it does ''not'' mean that anyone has to help enable their speech, or to listen to their speech; or even, per se, refrain from stopping them from speaking, though ''other'' rights, such as the claim right to be free from assault, may severely limit what others can do to stop them.

Liberty rights and claim rights are the inverse of one another: a person has a liberty right permitting him to do something only if there is no other person who has a claim right forbidding him from doing so. Likewise, if a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. For example, a person has a ''liberty right'' to walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so, since there is no obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. But pedestrians may have an obligation not to walk on certain lands, such as other people's private property, to which those other people have a claim right. So a person's ''liberty right'' of walking extends precisely to the point where another's ''claim right'' limits his or her freedom.

===Positive versus negative===
{{Main|Negative and positive rights}}
In one sense, a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called ''positive rights''. However, in another sense, rights may allow or require inaction, and these are called ''negative rights''; they permit or require doing nothing. For example, in some countries, e.g. the [[United States]], citizens have the ''positive right'' to vote and they have the ''negative right'' to not vote; people can choose not to vote in a given election without punishment. In other countries, e.g. [[Australia]], however, citizens have a positive right to vote but they do not have a negative right to not vote, since [[compulsory voting|voting is compulsory]]. Accordingly:
* '''Positive rights''' are permissions to do things, or entitlements to be done unto. One example of a positive right is the purported "right to welfare".<ref name=tws21decgkfjf/>
* '''Negative rights''' are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction is invoked by [[libertarianism|libertarians]] who think of a ''negative right'' as an entitlement to non-interference such as a right against being assaulted.<ref name="tws21decgkfjf">{{cite news |last=Wenar |first=Leif |date=July 9, 2007 |title=Rights |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ |access-date=2009-12-21 |work=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |publisher=Stanford University |quote=A distinction between negative and positive rights is popular among some normative theorists, especially those with a bent toward libertarianism. The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-interference, while the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service. A right against assault is a classic example of a negative right, while a right to welfare assistance is a prototypical positive right.}}</ref>

Though similarly named, positive and negative rights should not be confused with ''active rights'' (which encompass "privileges" and "powers") and ''passive rights'' (which encompass "claims" and "immunities").

===Individual versus group===
{{Main|Individual and group rights}}
{{Essay-like|section|date=February 2024}}
* '''Individual rights''' are rights held by individual people regardless of their group membership or lack thereof.
[[File:Malian Soldiers.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Soldiers lined up in a row, with green caps, carrying rifles|Do groups have ''rights''? Some argue that when soldiers bond in [[combat]], the group becomes like an organism in itself and has ''rights'' which trump the rights of any individual soldier.]]
* '''Group rights''', including the rights of [[nations]], have been argued to exist when a group is seen as more than a mere composite or assembly of separate individuals but an entity in its own right. In other words, it is possible to see a group as a distinct being in and of itself; it is akin to an enlarged individual, a corporate body, which has a distinct will and power of action and can be thought of as having ''rights''. Rights of nations, including a national [[Right of nations to self-determination|right to self-determination]] have been argued for,<ref>[[Pope John Paul II]], [https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html Sollicitudo rei socialis], section 15, published 30 December 1987, accessed 29 July 2023</ref> and a platoon of soldiers in [[combat]] can be thought of as a distinct group, since individual members are willing to risk their lives for the survival of the group, and therefore the group can be conceived as having a "right" which is superior to that of any individual member; for example, a soldier who disobeys an officer can be punished, perhaps even killed, for a breach of obedience. But there is another sense of group rights in which people who are members of a group can be thought of as having specific individual rights because of their membership in a group. In this sense, the set of rights which individuals-as-group-members have is expanded because of their membership in a group. For example, workers who are members of a group such as a [[Trade union|labor union]] can be thought of as having expanded individual rights because of their membership in the labor union, such as the rights to specific working conditions or wages.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}

There can be tension between individual and group rights. A classic instance in which group and individual rights clash is conflicts between unions and their members. For example, individual members of a union may wish a wage higher than the union-negotiated wage, but are prevented from making further requests; in a so-called [[closed shop]] which has a [[union security agreement]], only the union has a ''right'' to decide matters for the individual union members such as wage rates. So, do the supposed "individual rights" of the workers prevail about the proper wage? Or do the "group rights" of the union regarding the proper wage prevail?{{Citation Needed|date=February 2024}}

The [[Austrian School|Austrian School of Economics]] holds that only individuals think, feel, and act whether or not members of any abstract group. The society should thus according to economists of the school be analyzed starting from the individual. This methodology is called [[methodological individualism]] and is used by the economists to justify [[individual rights]].{{Citation Needed|date=February 2024}} Similarly, the author [[Ayn Rand]] argued that only individuals have rights, according to her philosophy known as [[Objectivism]].<ref name="tws18decafafa">{{cite news |author=Ayn Rand |date=2009-12-18 |title=The Virtue of Selfishness: Individual Rights |url=http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html |access-date=2009-12-18 |publisher=The Ayn Rand Lexicon |quote=Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). see page 104. See also: [[Group rights#Objectivist view|Collectivized 'Rights]]}}</ref> However, others have argued that there are situations in which a group of persons is thought to have rights, or ''group rights''.

===Other senses===
{{Essay-like|section|date=February 2024}}
Other distinctions between rights draw more on historical association or [[family resemblance]] than on precise philosophical distinctions. These include the distinction between '''[[civil and political rights]]''' and '''[[economic, social and cultural rights]]''', between which the articles of the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] are often divided. Another conception of rights groups them into '''[[three generations of human rights|three generations]]'''. These distinctions have much overlap with that between [[negative and positive rights]], as well as between [[individual rights]] and [[group rights]], but these groupings are not entirely coextensive.

===Politics===
[[File:Man being arrested.jpg|thumb|right|alt=three police officers surround a man in a tee shirt who is handcuffed|Police officers in the United States are required to read the [[Miranda warning]] between making an arrest and beginning an interrogation. The warning informs the person arrested that they have rights included in the Fifth Amendment. Failure to "read Miranda" disqualifies evidence obtained primarily in the questioning.]] 
Rights are often included in the foundational questions that governments and politics have been designed to deal with. Often the development of these socio-political institutions have formed a dialectical relationship with rights.{{Citation needed|date=November 2022}}

Rights about particular issues, or the rights of particular groups, are often areas of special concern. Often these concerns arise when rights come into conflict with other legal or moral issues, sometimes even other rights. Issues of concern have historically included [[Indigenous rights]], [[labor rights]], [[LGBT social movements|LGBTQ rights]], [[reproductive rights]], [[disability rights]], [[patient rights]] and [[prisoners' rights]]. With increasing [[mass surveillance|monitoring]] and the information society, [[digital rights|information rights]], such as the [[right to privacy]] are becoming more important.{{Citation needed|date=November 2022}}

Some examples of groups whose rights are of particular concern include [[animal rights|animals]],<ref name=tws21decghnnb>{{cite magazine
|author = Kate Pickert
|title = Undercover Animal-Rights Investigator
|quote = One of the most powerful tools animal-rights activists have is the video footage shot inside places like poorly run dog kennels, animal-testing facilities and factory farms, used as grim evidence of the brutality that can take place. But how do animal-rights crusaders actually get those videos?
|magazine = Time Magazine
|date = Mar 9, 2009
|url = http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1883742,00.html
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090310160825/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1883742,00.html
|url-status = dead
|archive-date = March 10, 2009
|access-date = 2009-12-21
}}</ref> and amongst [[human rights|humans]], groups such as [[children's rights|children]]<ref name=tws21decfsxsxd>{{cite news
|author = Victoria Burnett
|title = Human Rights Watch says migrant children are at risk in Canary Islands
|quote = "They must immediately come up with a plan to close these centers," Simone Troller, author of the report and a children's rights researcher for Human Rights Watch in Europe, said in a telephone interview. "While these centers continue to exist, we believe children continue to be at risk."
|newspaper = The New York Times
|date = July 26, 2007
|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/europe/26iht-abuse.4.6849724.html
|url-access=subscription
|access-date = 2009-12-21
}}</ref> and [[youth rights|youth]], [[Parents' rights movement|parents]] (both [[mothers' rights|mothers]] and [[fathers' rights movement|fathers]]), and [[men's rights|men]] and [[women's rights|women]].<ref name="tws21decfe4522">{{cite news |date=October 21, 2009 |title=Soap Operas Boost Rights, Global Economist Says |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113870313 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091225211516/https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113870313 |archive-date=Dec 25, 2009 |access-date=2009-12-21 |work=Morning Edition |publisher=NPR |quote=Many of these locally produced programs feature strong female characters. When Rede Globo began broadcasting in its native Brazil in 1965 the average woman had about six children — now the average woman has no children or one child.}}</ref>

Accordingly, [[politics]] plays an important role in developing or recognizing the above rights, and the discussion about which behaviors are included as "rights" is an ongoing political topic of importance. The concept of rights varies with political orientation. Positive rights such as a "right to medical care" are emphasized more often by left-leaning thinkers, while right-leaning thinkers place more emphasis on negative rights such as the "right to a fair trial".{{Citation needed|date=November 2022}}

Further, the term ''equality'' which is often bound up with the meaning of "rights" often depends on one's political orientation. [[Conservatism|Conservatives]] and right-wing [[Libertarianism|libertarians]] and advocates of [[free markets]] often identify equality with [[equality of opportunity]], and want what they perceive as equal and fair rules in the process of making things, while agreeing that sometimes these fair rules lead to unequal outcomes. In contrast, [[socialism|socialists]] see the power imbalance of employer-employee relationships in capitalism as a cause of inequality and often see unequal outcomes as a hindrance to equality of opportunity. They tend to identify [[equality of outcome]] as a sign of equality and therefore think that people have a right to portions of necessities such as [[health care]] or [[Welfare spending|economic assistance]] or [[House|housing]] that align with their needs.<ref name="tws21dece563e">{{cite news |author=Roemer |first=John E. |author-link=John Roemer |date=December 14, 2005 |title=Roemer on equality of opportunity |url=http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2005/12/roemer_on_equal.html |access-date=2009-12-21 |work=[[New Economist]] |publisher=New Economist |type=Blog |quote=Equality of opportunity is to be contrasted with equality of outcome. While advocacy of the latter has been traditionally associated with a left-wing political philosophy, the former has been championed by right-wing political philosophy. Equality of outcome fails to hold individuals responsible for imprudent actions that may, absent redress, reduce the values of the outcomes they enjoy, or for wise actions that would raise the value of the outcomes above the levels of others'. Equality of opportunity, in contrast, 'levels the playing field,' so that all have the potential to achieve the same outcomes; whether or not, in the event, they do, depends upon individual choice.}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=A blog post is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=February 2024}}