Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A Northern Ireland politician declared not long ago that the British people had a right not to believe the IRA's latest statement on disarmament. Therefore, he said, the British government had no right to allow the IRA further representation at the talks. Rights assertions like these are quite common in everyday talk, even if pronouncements linking epistemic and legal rights are less so. All assertions of rights are, I believe, assertions about conclusive reasons. Here I will defend the following sub-thesis: All assertions of epistemic rights, like assertions of one type of legal right, imply 'conclusive reason' assertions with a certain distinctive structure. Toward the end of the paper I will expand the range of rights included in this sub-thesis. We begin with two sample rights-assertions, one epistemic and one legal:
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leif Wenar (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: