RIGHTS AND DUTIES

a) Definition b) Division c) Properties d) Subject

a) DEFINITION OF RIGHT
A right, considered in general, is that which is just, whether this be a just law, a
just deed, a just debt, or a just claim. Our use of the adjective right may show all these
senses. Thus, we say that a law, a deed, a debt, or a claim is “right,” or, colloquially, “all
right,” or “just right.”
Taking the word right as a substantive, we may view it objectively, or as a thing,
as when we say, “This is my right;” “That is his right;” “The wise man will see that he
gets his rights.” In this sense, right is defined as that which is owed or that which is due.
Again, we may view the term right subjectively, i. e., as residing in the one who
possesses it (its subject), and thus considered it, as a moral power residing in a person,
- a power which all others are bound to respect – of doing, possessing, or requiring
something. It is in this subjective sense that we use the term right in ethics.
Right is founded upon law. For the existence of a right in one person involves an
obligation in all others of not impeding or violating the right. Now, it is only law that can
impose such an obligation. And whether this law, upon which right is based, be the
natural law or positive law, it is ( as all true law ) founded ultimately upon the Eternal
Law. Hence, the ultimate basis of right is Eternal Law.

b) DEFINITION OF RIGHT
i. Right is natural or positive according as it is founded upon the natural law or
positive law. Again as positive law is both divine and human, we distinguish divine right
and human right. Further, according to the division of human law, we have ecclesiastical
right and civil right. The right to preserve one’s life is a natural right; the right of the
church to teach is a divine right; the rights established by Canon Law are ecclesiastical
rights; the right of citizens to vote is a civil right.
ii. Right is also distinguished as a right of property (or possession) and right of
jurisdiction. The right of property is the power one has of disposing of thing possessed
according to one’s own wish or benefit: to sell, to keep, to lend, to change, to give
away. The right of property is called a right in property or possession when goods are
actually in hand; while the same right is called a right to property or possession when
goods are owned, but not in hand. Thus, my right to my books is a right in property;
while my right to books bought and paid for, but not yet delivered to me, is a right to
property. – The right of jurisdiction is the lawful power of a duly constituted superior to
make laws and to govern his subjects.
iii. Right is alienable when its subject (i. e., its possessor) may lawfully cede or
renounce it. Thus, I may renounce my right in property by giving it away. –
Right is inalienable when its subject is not free to renounce, but must retain it.
Such is my right to life.
iv. Right is juridical (or perfect) when it is a legal right, a right strictly enjoined by
law, natural or positive. In other words, it is a right which must be respected,
allowed, fulfilled, as a matter of strict justice. Thus, the right of my grocer to
the amount I owe him is a perfect or juridical right; so also is the right of
 parents to the respect of their children. – Right is non-juridical (or imperfect, or
moral, or a “claim”) when it is founded on a virtue other than justice. Such a
right is very often founded upon the virtue of charity. Thus, the right of a
benefactor to gratitude, or the right of a poor man to alms, is an imperfect or
moral right or a claim. The things that are required by seemliness or the fitness
of things are the object of imperfect right. Thus, it is seemly and fitting that we
be liberal and kindly in our dealings with others: and we say that others have
an imperfect right, a claim, to such conduct on our part.

c. PROPERTIES OF RIGHT
Since right is an inviolable moral power by its very definition – for we have defined
right as a moral power which all are bound to respect – we do not list inviolability as one
of the properties of right. Inviolability belongs to the essence of right as such. We list
three properties of right, as follows: coaction, limitation, collision.
i Coaction is the power which right enjoys of forcefully preventing its
violation, and of exacting redress for unjust violation. Ordinarily the moral power called
coaction must be exercised through process of law. Between man and man (not between
man and society) coaction must be exercised by personal force or violence only when all
other means have failed.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES

ii. limitation is the natural terminus of right, beyond which it cannot be exercised
without violating the right of another. A right ceases to be a right at the point where it
impinges injuriously upon another’s right. If I wish to remove my own house and to
build a better one in its place, I may not burn my present house, though that would be
the easiest way to get rid of old and useless lumber; such an action would endanger the
houses of my neighbors, that is, such an action would violate my neighbors’ right to the
secure and unmenaced possession of their property.
iii. Collision is the apparent conflict of two rights in such wise that cannot be
exercised without violation of the other. We say it is an “apparent” conflict; for a real
conflict of rights cannot exist; when rights collide, the greater prevails and the lesser
ceases to be a right. All right is founded on law; all law is an ordinance of reason (when
it is strictly and truly law); and there can be no conflict between the ordinances of
reason, for “it would not be reasonable for reason to contradict itself.” In apparent
collision of rights, that is the prevailing right, to which the other cedes (or in face of
which the other disappears), which: (1) belongs to the more universal order; or (2) is
concerned with the grave matter; or (3) is founded upon the stronger title or claim.
Thus, a soldier may place the welfare of his country ahead of his private right to life;
thus, the right to life which belongs to a man trespassing on my grounds is a greater
right than my right to privacy, and I may not take his life for the act of trespass; thus,
the claim upon my charity possessed by poor relatives is stronger than the claim
possessed by other poor persons.

d) THE SUBJECT OF RIGHT

By the subject of right we mean the person who possesses right.
 The subject of right is a person. It is not an irrational creature. For right is a moral
power, and belongs only to those that can exercise moral acts. Therefore brute animals
have no rights. Again, we may argue, creatures that have rights have obligations; and
no creature can have rights which is incapable of assuming or discharging obligations
(i.e., moral obligations, duties). Therefore, animals have no rights.
What of cruel treatment of animals? Such treatment is immoral, not because it
violates any rights that animals may have, buy because it outrages reason. Cruelty is
not in accord with the dictates of reason. Cruelty to animals does not square with the
right and reasonable order of things which reason (and ultimately the moral law)
demands. For this reason cruelty to animals is immoral and evil.
What of vivisection? Animals are created to man’s use. Now it is a most valuable
use of animals to employ them for the furtherance of biological knowledge. Hence,
vivisection is not illicit in itself. But to inflict injury or pain upon animals where no
necessity or use is served, is not reasonable; nay, it is contrary to reason; and hence is
evil.
As to sentiment about animals, especially pet animals, it is to be said that the
sane treatment of them, the treatment required by reason, is ordinary care for their
needs; and with this may be associated a certain pleasure and amusement in having
them about. Two extremes are unreasonable and hence evil: the extreme of cruelty on
the one hand, and the extreme of excessive care or consideration for animals, on the
other.
The subject of rights, we have said, must be capable of assuming and discharging
obligations, i.e., duties. This is true in the order of creatures. God, the All Perfect
Creator has perfect rights, but He has no obligations, for He made all creatures and all
they have is His: He owes them nothing. But God’s rational creatures have rights and
duties; and His rational creatures are men and angels. But in Ethics, the science of
human acts, we consider man as the person who is the subject of rights; and, indirectly,
we must consider God as the subject of rights when we come to consider man as having
duties towards God.

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE

We have learned in this Article the nature of right, have studied it subjectively as a
moral power residing in a person, and have seen that its basis is law, and ultimately the
Eternal Law.
We have divided rights as natural, positive, divine, human, ecclesiastical, civil; as
rights of property and right of jurisdiction; as alienable and inalienable; as juridical and
non-juridical.
We have studied the properties of right, viz., coaction, limitation, and collision,
and have discussed, under the last named subject, the solution of an apparent conflict of
rights.
We have expressed and justified the true doctrine of the subject of right, and have
seen that this must be a person and only a person.