Rights

The concept of a "right" is derived from the Latin, jus (ius) or justus (iustus) meaning "just" and "justice." The concept of rights has been given different meanings throughout history. St. Thomas Aquinas treated the concept of jus as meaning "law," "justice," or "what is owed to others." William of Ockham (A.D. 1280?-1349), the Franciscan philosopher, is credited with having been the first writer to use jus in the modern sense of a right as constituting a claim. In the 17^th and 18^th centuries, the concepts of "natural rights," "human rights," and "option rights" became predominant and influenced Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man, and the U.S. Bill of Rights. The focus of this conception of rights is on the liberty to pursue one’s own conception of the good. In the 19^th century during the Industrial Revolution, the notion of rights as an "interest" or as "welfare rights" was introduced. The concept of rights as "interests" emphasizes the importance of well-being and claims to those goods required for well-being as opposed to merely the liberty to engage one’s own pursuits. This conception of rights plays a significant role within the context of modern Catholic moral/social teaching beginning with Pope Leo XIII. In continuity with the earlier teaching of the Church, this newer concept of rights is always linked to the concept of duty. From this perspective, a right can be defined as "a moral claim on some good that is necessary for living a properly human life." In other words, one has a right to certain goods because they are necessary to fulfill one’s call or moral responsibility in life.

The idea that rights imply corresponding duties is not unique to Catholic social teaching. Although some rights have corresponding duties on the part of the right-holder, e.g., specific duties, all rights imply duties on the part of others. It may be helpful to think of four basic categories of rights: positive rights, negative rights, absolute rights, and limited rights. If individuals have a positive right, then others have a duty to provide them with that to which they have this right or claim. For example, if individuals have a positive right to health care, then someone else has a duty to provide them with health care services or at least the resources with which to attain access to these services. If someone has a negative right, then others have a duty not to interfere with that person’s pursuit of his or her interests. Thus, someone who has the right not to have his or her health interfered with has a negative right to health. Absolute rights are those claims or protections (i.e., positive or negative rights) that are to be guaranteed without exception. Commonly considered, most absolute rights are negative rights. Limited rights admit of restrictions or exceptions dependent on the circumstances. Generally, positive rights are most often considered limited rights.

However, the specification of positive and negative rights, i.e., the determination of what specific rights consist of and whether positive or negative rights are absolute or limited, depends to a large extent on one’s conception of justice, the common good, and human dignity. These concepts must all be understood in light of each other in order for any of them to be understood appropriately. How one defines each of these terms will determine how one understands the others. Without some notion of justice, for example, there is neither a basis for deciding which interests or claims must be respected, nor a way to determine which interests or claims take priority in cases in which different rights conflict. From the Catholic understanding of justice, the common good and human dignity, human rights are absolute rights that can be either positive or negative (e.g., the right to life can be considered both a positive and a negative right).

Return to Issues & Concepts

Return to For the Public - Table of Contents

Return to For Affiliates - Table of Contents