The natural right theorist might argue in response that the above argument seems to involve a kind of utilitarianism of rights.
This is just to say, as all rights theorists will repeatedly say, that rights do not exhaust the moral domain.
This conflict reflects the complex paradox that child rights theorists face when trying to escape paternalism by paternalistically securing economic rights, they are trampling on political rights.
Natural rights theorists agree that human reason can grasp the fact that it is appropriate to treat beings with such attributes in certain ways, although they disagree on whether such facts are self-evident.
The traditional account of promissory obligation (the one Hume is mocking in the quote above) is a Natural Law view, i.e., one derived from the various traditions that go under that general title, like the virtue views of the ancients, those of the medieval theologians, the early modern rights theorists and beyond.
Although some animal rights theorists would accept this conclusion, defenders of animal research will take it as a reductio of the Borderline-Person Argument, maintaining that if full moral status really is as ubiquitous as that, then DeGrazia's claim about the research protections owed individuals with full or near-full moral status is overly strict.
However, African human rights theorists must critically examine Western notions of human rights to see if and how they apply to African socio-political life.
But if the aggregation of interests can yield collective rights, a morality of rights may begin to assume the character of, and to present the same dangers as, the very sort of utilitarian thinking that many rights-theorists intend it to preclude.
Their growth has been attributed by some to being attractive to people on the far right, conspiracy theorists and "very noisy careerists" as their deputy once called them.
He admires far-right European theorists like the Weimar conservative Carl Schmitt; he admires various strains of the European New Right.
