Attractra Ingram's A Political Theory Of Rights

Freedom, rights, and equality each contribute significantly to crafting an understanding of what justice is. The three principles have a nuanced relationship and rely on each other to create the holistic nature of justice. Depending on the type of justice and the definition attributed to it, the measure of cruciality between each principle changes. If we define justice in terms of it being procedural, then rights play a larger role, but if we change this to a social justice view, then freedom may come into play more, and if we use a distributive view of justice, then equality takes the lead. It is clear that how we approach the meaning of justice changes the ranking of the three attributes. Having said this, one definition that resonates with

They can still be regarded as being the least crucial aspect, and this is because of the problems with how rights can be interpreted. One of the issues is the way that rights are defined. This is picked up by Attractra Ingram in her book A Political Theory of Rights, where she argues that rights are inherently political. She argues that rights are political ‘in the way that they are powers that flow from political principles’ (Ingram A, 1994). This point is adequately proven by the overturning of Roe v Wade. The fact that it was a majority Conservative Supreme Court decision makes it easier to believe that the overturn was an inherently political decision. The so-called impartiality of rights comes into question when you see it through the political lens brought forward by Ingram. The issue of abortion, especially in America, is inherently political, and when it was overturned, this revealed the inherent flaw in using rights as a basis for justice. Although their ability to change over time is, in some cases, a pro, it is also not a redeemable quality. Because rights can change and are always changing, there is also a possibility that people's liberties are in danger of being taken away, as is shown by Roe v. Wade’s overturning. This also means that the idea that rights allow for accountability for authorities can also be brought into question. Because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, this meant that it was now in the hands of the individual states to decide what the guidelines should be. This led to a wide array of rulings, spanning from severe restrictions in states such as Texas to looser ones in California. The ability for individual states to decide this completely disregards the balancing of power argument as it allows for individual liberties to be infringed upon. Because of this, it