Owing and Quantification

This paper engages with Kramer's provocative analysis of disjunctive quantification. His idea is that someone can owe a duty to a disjunction of agents (and some such disjunction can together hold the correlative claim‐right). I find this idea very puzzling and I also see more difficulties than Kramer does in the proposition that a disjunction can pass his own test for right‐holding. I therefore offer the reader two ways to avoid having to rely on disjunctive quantification. One way distinguishes directed duties from undirected duties, while the other introduces a constructive ambiguity in what it means to owe a duty to someone.