The Realm of Rights - Thomson

Wow, Thomson is awesome! There are so many things she covered in her article, all of which I found beneficial to guiding my thoughts about rights - specifically, all of the complications and examples that she mentioned and articulated so well.

I am a little confused on the good v. value distinction, as well, Ernie. Initially, when she states that value is irrelevant and that "we are to be asking only how good it is for those who would be affected by the acts if the acts do or do not take place or, alternatively, how bad it is for them if the acts do or do not take place" (151), I was unsure as to how 'good' or 'bad' can be determined without putting value on them? Then, when reading further, I think what she means by saying that value is irrelevant is when she states, "The Tradeoff Idea in particular is to be understood to say that what matters is not how good those affected by a claim infringement would feel, not how good they think the claim infringement would be for them, but rather how good it really would be for them" (152). So, we should look at the 'good' or 'bad' objectively instead of subjectively by putting value on the terms. How we should look at 'good' or 'bad' objectively, though, I'm still not sure I understand. However, my favorite sentence of her piece, by far, is the following: "The answer is that there is no answer" (153). I like how she humbly admits that she certainly does not have all of the answers, she can only guide us through her thought process, because if one thing is clear, it is that coherently justifying and articulating rights is difficult.

The most important thing I took away from this chapter is that, "...a theory of rights cannot be expected to supply a nonvague general formula by means of which it can be decided, quite generally, when it is permissible to infringe a claim" (165). Well said!