What Are Rights? Duty & The Law | Philosophy Tube
What are human rights? Wesley Hohfeld’s philosophical analysis is the tool we use to understand legal and moral duties to one another.
More Videos Like this: http://tinyurl.com/nljmqsu
Subscribe! http://tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/PhilosophyTube
Audible: http://www.audibletrial.com/PhilosophyTube
FAQ: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyTube/posts/460163027465168
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyTube?ref=hl
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Wesley Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays
Patrons:
Jesse Austin
Intimidating Scones
D.J. MacIsaac
Lydia and Nate Thorn
Alan Falloon
Jeffrey
Emiliano Heyns
Horatio Cordero
Glenn Murphy
José Maria Ruiz
Dominik
Eran Mekhmandarov
Ian George Walker
Kasey
Alan Browning
Emil Jakobsen
Monty Evans
Michal Parusinski
Alec Chvirko
Corey Mohler
Eric Driussi
Troy R
Steve Usher
TheLitCritGuy
NerdSync Productions
André Rodrigues
Talia F E
Jason Cherry
Juho Laitalainen
Rich Clarke
Nathan Warre
Sophia Sun
Matthew
Joshua
Malek Badareen
Lennart Krause
Christian Mertes
John Gietzen
Alistair Gilmour
Tom Saleeba
Adam
Leo
Zach
Strangely Brown
Jana Branch
Lonnie Callies
And all those who chose to donate anonymously!
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: ‘Show your Moves’ and ‘Pamgea’ by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
‘The Day I Die – Remastered’ by TechnoAxe – http://tinyurl.com/kkrsfgg
Title Animation by Amitai Angor AA VFX – https://www.youtube.com/dvdangor2011
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
@erikjeffreys2144
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
This video explains very well how rights "work", the names of their components, etc It tells me what a right does, it gives me a definition, but it doesn't tell me what a right "is" ontologically.
@Drikkerbadevand
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
I think the word rights is often used in a colloquial sense, and I think alot of people don't really know what rights are, or how it differs from privileges, and what 'ought to be'.
Like housing, clean drinking water, and food. ARE NOT RIGHTS. And they aren't treated as such in our society. Rights you have regardless of everyting. Someone has to supply you water and food and a house. Which means labor is involved. And your rights do NOT include other people's labor. Granted, you have to right to SEEK OUT these things. You can pay for water, food etc
@HughWalton-fw2dp
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Sorry this pretty lame: define the word right
@carlwhite4233
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
WAIT!? Did you say Thorn? Was your Mom a patreon supporter back in the day? @Abigail Thorn lol
@besmart2350
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Rights don't exist; they are made up in our minds. What we call 'rights' are just a range of behaviors that one group of powerful human monkeys (the government) allows the rest of the human monkeys, who are weaker and lower in rank (the citizens), to exhibit.
@dawnmoore9122
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
This is a really interesting concept! And I think a person's duties and stuff regarding rights are, for instance, moral duties if you're talking about people having rights on a moral basis, and legal duties if you're talking about legal rights, etc.
@rekall76
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
oOooO… i find the Hohfeldian analysis to be quite elegant
@عبداللهاحمد-ب4ح7د
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
او فلحت
@cloudoftime
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
It doesn't seem to me like you sufficiently explained the foundational first order concepts. For example, if someone is at Liberty to kill you, then according to your framing you have no claim on them not to kill you so they have no duty not to kill you. This also doesn't explain where the force of a duty comes from; if you have a claim on them to not kill you, the only thing that would enforce their duty to not kill you would be your ability to prevent them from doing so.
This doesn't so much make the idea of a duty something that a person has within them, unless, of course, there is a sense of obligation; it would more so be that it's a limitation put upon them.
@timthompson6025
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
You only have a right if you can keep it yourself. If you can't its not your right, but the right of the person that allows you to have the right. Max Sterner Gang
@antonidamk
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
I'm not sure if this is the wording of the Hohfeldian analysis, but it bugs me, as a lawyer, to hear the words "if I have a claim, that means you have a responsibility", because in legal terms, at least in UK English, the correct analysis is:
– If I have a RIGHT, that right has a correlative RESPONSIBILITY (we more commonly say DUTY);
– If I have a RESPONSIBILITY, that does not necessarily mean someone has a correlative right (for example, there are a lot of duties on public bodies that have no specific means of enforcement, or the Party Wall Act 1999 provides a lot of duties without creating and rights (one could argue that a right is implicit if there is a duty, but one could also argue that a right with no means of enforcement is not really a right);
– A CLAIM only arises once a RESPONSIBILITY which has a correlative RIGHT has been breached (and often only if there has been any loss arising out of it).
@molonlabe8470
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Every single individual has the exact same rights. The members of the ruling class (including the president) have the exact same rights as everyone else. It would be impossible for them to acquire "extra rights" since nobody could give these extra "rights" to them. This is why all forms of government are illegitimate aside from self-government. If you are going to make a video about rights, it would be good if you knew what you were talking about. If there is no victim due to someones actions, there is no crime which means the individual is just exercising his natural rights.
@nienke7713
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
In order to have a claim to something, you must also be at liberty not to use it; to do the opposite.
A claim to life is only a right if you equally have the liberty to end your life; if you only have the option to live, it is a duty rather than a claim.
Thus the claim can't just be part of a pair, but it must come in a quartet:
-A claim to continuing your own life
-A duty to not end another's life
-No claim to the continuation of another's life
-The liberty to end your own life
The liberty can however exist as just a pair with the no-claim. Having the liberty to end your own life does infer that others do not have a claim to the continuation of your life, but it does not necesarily grant you a claim to continuing your life or a duty for others not to end it.
I'm not sure whether a duty neccesitates a claim either. If you are imposed a duty to continue living your life, that duty doesn't seem to have a claim of anyone in particular to you continuing your life. Maybe the government, in which case I suppose the government is at liberty to end your life (again: otherwise they don't really have a claim to it) and you have no claim to the continuation of your own life. Considering however that plenty of situations exist where neither you, nor the government, nor anyone else, is at liberty to kill you; it seems like duties can exist without granting anyone a particular claim to it; instead all parties (including yourself) have a duty not to end your life.
Similarly I don't see the no-claim as neccesitating a liberty. If I have no claim to consensually marrying another woman, that doesn't provide anyone with any additional liberty
@amphoeteric
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
If I have a duty to keep a promise it does not necessarily translate to you having a right to enforce the promise because my duty arises from my voluntary obligation to undertake that responsibility, it’s enforceability has nothing to do with your right
@w.loczykij5354
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
What you (and Hoffeld) talk about is a construct. Like a dance. Its not absolute. History knows many examples when simple sailor found himself in position to order an admiral. For law to be a LAW it has to be absolute. You can't suspend or modify the law of thermodynamics, can you. So laws are social constructs open for interpretation and suspension and if it is so – then they are rules and privileges. Not laws. Here today, gone tomorrow.
Is there a real RIGHT then? Yes. But YOU have to first give it to YOURSELF and then act on it. And it helps to be smart least you'll get crushed by unhappy about your rights majority because… group represent might, and might is right too.
@hibat5503
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
i am 16 wtf am i doing here
@joehobo8868
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
The only human right there is, is the human right to let out the animal within.
@spionasribbson5541
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
When talking about negative rights the duty this right implies is a non-action. However a duty not to perform an action can never be a duty. It’s like saying you owe me zero dollars. If you don’t owe me any money, I simply do not have a claim on you. Likewise, if you owe me a non-action, there is no duty to perform. How does this work in the hohfeldian model?
@vhawk1951kl
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
What are human rights?
More religion, religion being defined as : Any set of related unquestioned beliefs, assumptions, presumptions, preconceptions and norms(that bunk that men call morals or ethics)[not necessarily having anything to do with the god idea]
@vhawk1951kl
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Why not joust accept that while men(human beings) talk and bleat about rights, not a single one of them has any clear idea what a right is, nor can eve begin to define a right.
Why not just accept that?
Men use theses vague generalised words to indicate a vague feralization of which they have no very clear idea at al, and you only discover that when you challenge them to define whatever it is or invite them to set out clearly what they seek to convey when they use them.
Short answer: They have not the faintest idea.
Of course one or another of them will earnestly tell you that there are all sorts of rights, but what a right actually is?
No chance.
Why don't they just admit they have no idea what a right is?
Because they feel right fools when they have been talking about something of which they have no clear idea whatsoever, and no-one cares to recognise facts.
@vhawk1951kl
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Try donors. What is your motive for your exercise in the-blind-leading-the-blind?
Swagger. That is it, it not?
@vhawk1951kl
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Apparently a right(and none including Hohfeld have the faintest idea what a "right"is) can come in a variety of flavours shapes and forms, but is anyone any closer to a tight definition of what a "right" is?
Of course not. All the puppy does is chatter a-b-o-u-t "rights" , but an actual d-e-f-i-n-i-t-i-o-n of a " right"?-Not on your life
@vhawk1951kl
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Good old psychical algebra: X=Y=X where neither X nor Y gave a value or definition.
The blind leading the blind, a puppy purporting to "teach" puppies.
@vhawk1951kl
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
"Widely accepted"?-A fallacious appeal to a democracy of truth?
@vhawk1951kl
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Why is a puppy that has never practised law swaggering and having the nerve teach others about rights?
@vhawk1951kl
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Not a bad rough stab at a definition and more an opinion than a definition, and not really a definition at all and there is a particular reason why rights or a "right" are impossible to define and the first person to identify that reason gets a prize; clue: focus on what a definition is.
the speaker has no idea what a "right" is, he is merely giving you another's opinion absent one of his own. the reason that he has no idea is that he is looking in the wrong place but has no idea that he is looking in the wrong place because he is young and looks to others all the time, lacking the confidence to do his own analysis bless him but at least he is well spoken, speaks as does a gentleman, but he babbles, because he is young in the sense of lacking experience and confidence.
There is a very good and simple reason why men (human beings)simply cannot define their terms such as "law" or rights", now who can identify that very simple reason?
Clue: A mirror cannot reflect itself.
Now who can tell me why men cannot define their terms be they law, rights, morals, or whatever
@933erica
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Great explanation thanks!
@nnancycharles9803
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Dear reader could you please spare time to review this current campaign to stop human rights violations in South Korea.
Your support will strengthen those who are oppressed and will ruthless actions by the South Korean government.
@t
@PatchCornAdams723
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
If you're behind bars, what good is your right to water if the person on the other side denies you of it?
@KarolaTea
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Now I'm curious about those alleged limitations… hope there'll be a video on those too.
@F193Engineering
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Dumb
@joseluispcastillo
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
No, no. There exists no 1st order or 2nd order rights, as only rights exists. A "president" that you claim has 2nd order rights, only has powers to enforce rights. The president is of the executive branch, after all.
@oliviamarin6697
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
You helped me a lot!! Thank you very much
@saniakamal7549
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Very interesting 😊
@brandonmiles8174
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
When I was younger I was arrested a good handful of times, and ironically, they never read me my rights, except for once. My lawyer then informed me that it didn't matter, because it was my word against theirs, and they're cops, so their word carries more weight than mine, because I'm apparently actually guilty until proven innocent.
@jfrv2244
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
glad to have learnt sth, but… i was hoping to get an answer to WHAT makes a right a right? Do you have any literature on that? how is freedom of speech a right? why isn’t a privilege? for example.
@CraniumDranium
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
A definition is the intersection of a differentiative concept with an integrative concept. This video defines nothing.
This video is a load of crap.
"A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's (More accurately: a conceptually thinking life form.) range of activity in a social environment.
A corollary of this is the principle that a man must never initiate the use of physical force in human interactions.
The validation of rights is that rights are necessary for man to use his faculty of reason and reason is man's sole and most fundamental natural tool of survival.
Rights derive not from Legislative Law nor from Divine Law but from the Law of Identity; man is man."
—Ayn Rand
@Pfhorrest
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Also worth mentioning that liberties and powers are classifiable as "active" rights, while claims and immunities are "passive" rights, and that all of this is separate entirely from positive and negative rights. Almost all of the discourse on positive and negative rights is implicitly about first-order passive rights (claims), and only discusses active or second-order rights by implication of those claims.
@Pfhorrest
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
A much better example of immunities would be things like most of the rights in the (American) Bill of Rights, which are explicitly limits on the powers of the government, and conversely establish immunities for the people with respect to that government. The right to freedom of speech isn't just a liberty to speak freely, an absence of any claim against you speaking, it is an immunity against the power of the government to take away that liberty. The Constitution in general is traditionally seen as saying nothing about first-order rights, but only second-order rights: it's all about who has what powers and immunities, with your claims and liberties either being pre-existing (and unchangeable if you have immunities protecting them), or created and modified over time by whoever the power to do so is granted to.
@rareboy874
December 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
If the law is depented on this philosophy plz kill it it does a terrible job at keeping rights
Comments are closed.