Private Requitals

Kuklin, Bailey

Journal: Cleveland State Law Review

Volume: 64

First Page: 965

Year: 2016

Bluebook Citation: 64 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 965 (2016)

Author: Bailey H. Kuklin: all 10 publications


Abstract

Previously, I examined the establishment of a person’s substantive rights and, correlatively, duties. But this was only the first step. This Article addresses the second step: the means for recognizing requital rights violations, including their articulation, adoption, and implementation. Taking a deontic, individualistic perspective on rights, this Article aims to delineate and protect one’s personal freedom, one’s autonomy.

To do so, this Article, using a formal understanding of the categorical imperative, will examine whether an agent’s chosen maxims are deontically acceptable. The maxims need to be both first-order, substantive ones that establish autonomy boundary baselines, and second-order, requital ones that address violations of the baselines. Important elements in perhaps all maxims, both first- and second-order, are the notions of harm, wrongfulness, and blameworthiness. Once an agent’s substantive and requital maxims are properly in place and honored, she is truly in a position to be an autonomous person.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.