Individual Rights Vs Group Rights

6.Group rights vs individual rights: A dichotomy in the issue of triple talaq

Both, group rights as well as individual rights can co-exist peacefully, however it is also viable for them to enjoy a mutually supportive relation. Joseph Raz has mentioned that individual rights often presuppose the lifestyles of general social goods and that person rights themselves regularly promote social goods. sometimes, individual rights are rights only because they enhance social goods. Raz never claim that social goods are the objects of group rights, but he does divulge the error of supposing that an antagonism closer to collective concerns is by some means constructed into the purpose of individual rights. The interests that individual rights and group

Sometimes the concern is for the ones inside, and now and again for the ones outside, the right-possessing group .One subject is that, if we deliver moral status to groups as such, we shall lose sight of individuals within the group . If a group will have status as a collection independently of its members, those people will have not any standing on any be counted on which the relevant status lies with the group. On those matters, the separate wills of people cannot count. They will not be overridden, they will pass unrecognised. Thus, group rights may seem to be starkly at odds with the “separateness of persons”. Another issues is that the power that group rights may enable a group to use over its individuals . When we concede that a group has rights, those may be rights that it holds against its own members and that it may use to organize their lives. Thus, again, the rights held and wielded by a group can be rights exercised on the cost of individuals who fall inside it. In one sense, that appears an unnecessarily invidious manner of representing the connection between a group and its members. There is nothing uncommon about a group's establishing itself so that it may make decisions collectively, both directly or thru appointees, that bind its members severally. That describes the ordinary scenario for tennis clubs, anglers' institutions,

It might be argued critically that close inspection of particular rights which might be generally claimed as group rights exhibits both that they may be not rights in any respect or that they dissolve into individual rights. However, much criticism is directed at the very concept of group rights. That criticism is typically of two types: either it's sceptical of the claim that group can keep rights or it's far terrified of the results or outcomes of ascribing rights to groups. Groups may be determined undeserved subjects of rights due to the fact they lack properties, apart from authentic integrity, which might be deemed crucial for holding a right. Generally, proponents of the interest theory of rights were able to view group rights greater generously than individuals who adhere to the choice theory, although the supposition that groups can have interests has not gone unchallenged. The main thrust of this research has been that these group rights take on a basically different character depending upon whether or not we interpret them as collective rights or corporate rights. Mainly, scepticism about these(group) rights presupposes a corporate conception of those rights. It challenges claims that groups can have a being, value that is not reducible to that in their individuals. But, since the collective conception makes none of those claims, it is basically untouched by that scepticism. It is not, however, exempt from