Today, almost every social cause is framed as a “right.”
From internet access to free healthcare, from abortion to euthanasia, the language of rights has become the default tool for persuasion.
But this explosion of rights-talk raises a deeper question: What actually counts as a right?
Traditionally, rights referred to negative liberties, or the freedom to do things without interference. But modern usage has gone far beyond that.
Now, people claim rights to services, relationships, and outcomes without clarifying who owes the duty to provide them.
To sort through the confusion, we turn to legal philosopher Wesley Hohfeld’s framework. His schema helps us see what a right really is — and what it’s not.
Understanding Hohfeldian Rights
Hohfeld broke legal relationships into eight key positions. We’ll focus on these:
Claim-right ↔ Duty
Liberty ↔ No-right
A claim-right means you’re entitled to something from another, so they have a duty to provide it. Others must provide what the individual is entitled to from them.
For example, if John has a claim-right to $500 from Jane, he’s entitled to it and Jane has a duty to pay it.
A liberty means you’re free to do something, but others have a no-right to interfere in that no one else has a duty to help or stop you. The individual is free to do whatever they want without any input from others, be it help or hindrance.
So while John is free to walk along the pavement, he can’t demand that someone clear his path, and neither can others block it. That’s their no-right.
This distinction matters. Today, when people say they have a “right” to something, they often blur these categories. Are they claiming a duty from others, or just freedom from interference?
With that, let’s apply Hohfeld’s framework to some popular rights claims to see why they’re not real moral rights.
Right To Bodily Autonomy
This is often used to justify abortion. As a claim-right, it implies that others owe a duty to respect or enable one’s bodily decisions.
But carried to its logical end, that would also imply:
- Parents must feed their kids only what they want
- The state must allow public nudity
- Bystanders have a duty to let the suicidal self-harm
That’s clearly absurd. It neglects duties of care, morality, and civic responsibility.
What if we treat it as a liberty, the freedom to act without interference?
That too creates problems. Does someone have the liberty to:
- Walk away from a drowning child?
- Sell themselves into slavery?
- Consent to being tortured?
Most people would say no. The instinct that some acts remain wrong even with consent points to a deeper truth: life matters deeply, and some things are always wrong even if chosen,
Right To Die
Advocates of euthanasia argue there’s a right to die. If this is a claim-right, it means the state and doctors have a duty to assist anyone who wants to end their life, even if the person is not terminally ill.
If it’s a liberty, then one is free to ask anyone to help, not just doctors. Could someone ask their spouse to stab them in their sleep?
Again, few would support that. Even here, we recognise life as something that shouldn’t be violated, even voluntarily.
Right To Marry
This phrase is used to justify same-sex marriage. But what does this actually mean?
If it’s a claim-right, it means the state has a duty to recognise unions between two people of the same sex.
But this logic doesn’t stop there. It also implies that the state has a duty not to prevent marriages of relatives or of more than two people. After all, if marriage is just about personal choice, why draw the line at gender?
If it’s a liberty, it still implies the freedom to marry anyone one chooses without interference, be it a relative or multiple partners.
Is this where we want marriage to go?
The instinct that marriage involves more than consent, that it’s about the union of a man and a woman oriented toward family formation, shows that not all relationship choices deserve recognition.
The Damning Verdict On Modern Rights Claims
Be it claim-right or liberty, many modern “rights” claims crumble under scrutiny. They directly conflict with real moral duties (e.g. protecting life and family) and bring worrying implications if consistently applied.
This is why not every want should be elevated to a right. Rights must be tied to duties, grounded in reality, and coherent.
The troubling implications of modern claims to “rights” point to deeper issues.
Firstly, people assert rights not to clarify duties, but to avoid them. For example, the “right” to abortion or euthanasia is used to avoid the duty to protect life.
Secondly, modern rights claims often function as rhetorical devices rather than coherent moral arguments. The language of rights is used to shut down moral debate rather than clarify it.
Thinking Clearly About Rights
To sum up, Hohfeld’s framework raises two key questions. When someone claims a right, are they saying others owe them something? Or that no one can stop them?
When applied properly, it reveals just how shaky many modern rights claims are. Advocates often invoke rights without accepting their full logical consequences. And once these are made clear, most would retreat from the position or insist they didn’t mean that.
Ultimately, modern rights discourse uses the language of “rights” to avoid moral scrutiny. But this cannot be. As we’ll see soon, true rights are not built on personal desires but in something deeper.
Until then, let’s be more careful before we call something a “right.”
