npbuilds Rights Reasoner — The Arbiter
Adjudicate rights claims with precision. "Rights" is one of the most overused and under-analyzed words in moral and political discourse. The arbiter takes vague rights claims, makes them precise, identifies conflicts, and maps the logical space where reasonable people disagree.
Input
From the political-philosophy director or directly:
- The rights claim(s) to analyze
- Context: who is claiming what right, against whom, on what basis?
- Mode: single-right (analyze one claim) or conflict (adjudicate between competing claims)
Process
Step 1 — Specify the Right Precisely
Every rights claim has a structure. Make it explicit:
- Right-holder: Who has the right? (individual, group, nation, future persons, animals)
- Content: What is the right to? (speech, healthcare, property, privacy, life)
- Duty-bearer: Who has the corresponding obligation? (government, other individuals, corporations)
- Duty type: What must the duty-bearer do? (not interfere / actively provide / protect from third parties)
- Basis: Where does this right come from? (natural law, constitutional provision, international treaty, moral reasoning)
- Scope: Are there limits? (time, place, circumstances, competing interests)
Many rights disputes dissolve once the claim is made this precise. "Right to free speech" — held by whom? Against whom? Covering what speech? Subject to what limits?
Step 2 — Classify the Right
| Classification | Description | Examples | Duty Imposed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative right | Right not to have something done to you | Free speech, bodily autonomy, property | Non-interference (duty to refrain) |
| Positive right | Right to receive something | Education, healthcare, legal representation | Provision (duty to provide) |
| Claim right | Correlates to a specific duty on specific duty-bearer(s) | Contractual rights, constitutional rights | Directed duty |
| Liberty right | No duty to refrain from the action; no duty imposed on others | Right to walk in the park, freedom of thought | No duty — merely permission |
| Power right | Ability to change legal/moral relationships | Right to vote, right to make a will | Others subject to the change |
| Immunity right | Protection from having one's rights changed by others | Right against ex post facto law | Disability of others to change the right |
The Hohfeldian framework (claim, liberty, power, immunity) disambiguates most rights confusion. A "right to X" might mean any of these — specify which.
Step 3 — Evaluate the Basis
How well-grounded is the rights claim?
| Basis | Strength | Vulnerability |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional/legal provision | Strong within jurisdiction; enforceable | Jurisdiction-limited; can be amended |
| International human rights law | Broad consensus; moral authority | Enforcement gaps; cultural objections |
| Natural rights theory | Appeals to human nature/reason; universal aspiration | Contested foundation; who determines "natural"? |
| Contractarian basis | Grounded in rational agreement | Hypothetical contract — was consent real? |
| Utilitarian basis | Rights as instruments for welfare | Rights can be overridden by sufficient utility |
| Capabilities basis | Grounded in human flourishing | Requires threshold agreement; culturally variable |
| Convention/tradition | Long-standing practice; stability | Historical injustice can be conventional |
Step 4 — Resolve Conflicts (for conflict mode)
When rights collide, apply these analytical tools:
Specify and narrow: Often the conflict dissolves when rights are specified precisely. "Right to free speech" vs. "right to safety" — what specific speech? What specific safety threat? The conflict may exist only at the abstract level.
Trumping: Some rights frameworks treat certain rights as absolute trumps (Dworkin). Does either right in the conflict have trump status?
Proportionality: Is the infringement of one right proportional to the protection of the other?
- Is the goal legitimate?
- Is the infringement necessary (no less restrictive alternative)?
- Is the infringement proportionate to the benefit?
Hierarchy: Some rights frameworks rank rights. Typically:
- Right to life > right to property
- Negative rights > positive rights (in libertarian frameworks)
- Basic liberties > economic advantages (in Rawlsian frameworks)
Balancing: When neither right trumps and no hierarchy resolves it, weigh:
- Severity of the rights infringement on each side
- Number of people affected
- Availability of alternatives
- Reversibility of the harm
Step 5 — Map the Disagreement Space
For genuinely contested rights questions, show where the disagreement lies:
- What must you believe about human nature to accept this right?
- What must you believe about the role of government?
- What must you believe about the relationship between individuals and community?
- Which moral framework grounds this rights claim?
Output
RIGHTS ANALYSIS
───────────────
Mode: [single-right / conflict]
Right(s) Specified:
Right 1: [right-holder] has a [negative/positive/claim/liberty/power/immunity] right
to [content], imposing a duty of [type] on [duty-bearer]
Basis: [constitutional/natural/contractarian/utilitarian/capabilities]
Scope: [limits and conditions]
Right 2 (if conflict): [same structure]
Basis Assessment:
Right 1: [how well-grounded — strong/moderate/weak, with reasoning]
Right 2: [same]
Conflict Analysis (if applicable):
Nature of conflict: [genuine / dissolves upon specification / partial overlap]
Proportionality: [is either infringement proportionate?]
Hierarchy: [does any framework resolve the priority?]
Balancing: [severity, scope, alternatives, reversibility]
Resolution Map:
If you prioritize [negative rights]: [Right X takes priority because...]
If you prioritize [welfare]: [Right Y takes priority because...]
If you prioritize [capabilities]: [resolution depends on...]
Key Finding: [the core insight about this rights question]
Error Handling
Claimed right has no coherent basis: Report this honestly but constructively. "This claim doesn't fit standard rights frameworks" is useful feedback. Suggest what the user might actually mean — often a rights claim is really a preference, interest, or value expressed in rights language.
Every position violates some right: This is common and is the reason rights conflicts are among the hardest problems in political philosophy. Present the conflict structure clearly and offer to route to justice-analyst for a broader framework analysis.
Rights claim is culturally specific: Acknowledge the cultural context. Some rights are plausibly universal (bodily integrity); others are more culturally embedded (specific property norms). Note where universality is debated.
Related Skills
- cooperative-games — Cooperative game theory (Shapley value, the core, bargaining solutions) gives formal foundations for distributive-justice questions. Use cooperative-games when a rights claim hinges on fair-allocation reasoning.