And if there be any original defects, or adventitious ones introduced by time or corruption, it is not an easy thing to get them changed, even when all the world sees there is an opportunity for it.
For if it reach no farther than some private men′s cases, though they have a right to defend themselves, and to recover by force what by unlawful force is taken from them, yet the right to do so will not easily engage them in a contest wherein they are sure to perish; it being as impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it, as for a raving madman or heady malcontent to overturn a well-settled state, the people being as little apt to follow the one as the other.209.
Doesn't Hobbes have rights in the contract? He doesn't have natural rights, but doesn't he have rights in the contract? I'm not as interested for now in how we get rights but whether having an obligation means having a right. For Hobbes you clearly have no obligations (and I assume no rights) in the state of nature, but you clearly do have obligations in the contract to others in the contract who have agreed to sacrifice certain freedoms to gain what we might call rights. I don't know if he uses the word, but even if he didn't he certainly could without really changing his substantive views.
I generally dislike rights language and in any event think it is used FAR too freely, but your formulation sounds correct to me, Jeremy, that rights must have a corresponding obligation but not necessarily the converse.
Similarly, men still encounter more challenges in accessing family-friendly work policies, or flexible working arrangements compared to their women counterparts. Real gender equality in the workplace can only be attained when employees have access to and enjoy the same rewards, resources and opportunities regardless of whether they are a woman or a man.All human beings have the right to work and the same employment opportunities.
According to Hoff Sommers (), conventional expectations arise in certain social structures, such as friendship or nurturing relationships, and these expectations are comparable to making promises. In promising, the promisee can lay a claim on what the promiser has agreed to do. If parent–child relationships can be compared with relationships between promiser and promisee, and conventional expectations to promises, then the parent has a ‘right’ to what they expect from their children. In this view, the promise of the parent–child relationship is that adult children be “grateful, loyal, attentive, respectful and deferential to parents” (Hoff Sommers , p. 447).
DISPUTE RESOLUTION: Except where prohibited, by participating, Applicant agrees that all issues and questions concerning the construction, validity, interpretation and enforceability of these Official Rules, or the rights and obligations of participants and Sponsor and their agents shall be governed by and construed exclusively in accordance with the laws of Missouri without giving effect to any principles of conflicts of law of any jurisdiction. Applicant agrees that any action at law or in equity arising out of or relating to this Scholarship Program, or awarding of the prizes, shall be filed only in the courts of St. Louis County, State of Missouri or any court of the United States of America for the Eastern District of Missouri and Applicant hereby consents and submits to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purposes of litigating any such action.
FURTHER DOCUMENTATION: Except where prohibited, potential Scholarship Prize Recipients will be required to complete and return an Affidavit of Eligibility, Publicity/Liability Release, and Copyright Assignment within ten (10) days of notification.
When we think about the argument of reciprocity as a commonsense moral belief, this belief does probably not involve keeping a checkbook of what is given and received, nor the notion that exactly that should be given which is received. It cannot be meant to imply the repayment of a debt in the literal sense, and to portray the argument thus makes it a caricature. The arguments against this norm are probably best understood in a context of duties and corresponding rights. The indeterminate nature of duties based on a broad interpretation of ‘debt’ or on gratitude makes it hard to define corresponding rights of parents to receiving a certain kind of support from their children. In the absence of such strict duties and rights, it would be hard to build policies based on such duties. But it would still be possible to defend the existence of an indeterminate, imperfect duty of gratitude at the individual level. However, although some form of reciprocity, indebtedness or gratitude may be part of someone’s individual filial obligations, we claim that a theory of reciprocity has too narrow a scope if it portrays the parents as benefiting the child in childhood, and the adult child as the benefactor of elderly parents later in life. A quite different view on the parent–child relationship is offered by the friendship model of filial obligations.
(i) incomplete, lost, late, misdirected or illegible entries or for failure to receive Applications due to any cause, including without limitation human, transmission, or technical problems, failures, or malfunctions of any kind, whether originating with sender, or otherwise, that may limit an Applicant’s ability to participate in the Scholarship Program;
or (ii) any injury or damage resulting, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from participation in the Scholarship Program and/or the use of any prize, including, without limitation, claims, costs, injuries, losses and damages related to personal injuries, death, damage to, loss or destruction of property, or any claims, costs, injuries, losses, or damages related to or based on the Applicant’s rights of publicity or privacy, or the Applicant’s claim that he or she has somehow been defamed or portrayed in a false light.
ELIGIBILITY: The Ames Group Scholarship for 2017 is open only to those legal residents of the fifty (50) United States and the District of Columbia who are eighteen (18) years of age or older at the time of application and who are currently enrolled in an accredited post-secondary institution of higher learning (college or university). Current employees, officers, directors, partners, sponsors, affiliates, and agents of Sponsor and its related companies and members of their immediate families (defined as spouse, parents, siblings and children) and persons residing at the same address are not eligible to win. Void where prohibited.