人权必须作为“共同利益的基本组成部分”得到维护。这些权利“相互受制于或受限于共同利益的其他方面”——这些“方面”可以与涉及公共道德、公共卫生或公共秩序的问题联系起来。芬尼斯信奉某些绝对人权，即不将生命直接作为进一步达到目的的手段的权利;不被剥夺或被要求剥夺自己从事创造性活动的权利。福克斯的变成一个显式的治疗的权利但后来发现,他的整本书都是关于人权,他是自然权利的代名词——“现代语法的权利提供了一种方法表达几乎所有的实践合理性的要求,”后者短语,正如上面所讨论的,被等效为福克斯的自然法的传统。芬尼斯对人权的信仰使他能够对他与其他现代哲学家如格里塞兹和霍夫费尔德共同发展起来的自然法则的版本作出另一种表述。在回答什么是权利这一哲学问题时，菲尼斯提出了两种理论:利益理论和选择理论。选择理论之所以产生，是因为它把利益理论简单地看作是权利，是强加于义务的规则的反射。哈特教授认为，拥有一项权利就是控制他人的自由，或者说，控制他人的义务。(责任是对自由的限制，意思是道德自由或一个人在道德上被允许做什么)。他强调了这一点，批评了对这个问题的另一种回答——拥有权利意味着什么?——权利在于成为他人义务的受益者。哈特认为，在一些例子中，一个人是一项义务的受益人，但没有权利。他进一步认识到选择理论的不足，认为“权利概念的核心既不是个人选择，也不是个人利益，而是基本的或根本的个人需要”。芬尼斯也认为这与他自己关于人类繁荣的基本概念是一致的。
新西兰代写作业:共同利益的基本组成部分
human rights must be maintained as a ‘fundamental component of the common good’. Such rights are ‘subject to or limited to each other and by other aspects of the common good’ – these ‘aspects’can be linked to issues concerning public morality, public health or public order. Finnis believes in some absolute human rights i.e. the right not to have a life taken directly as a means to further end; the right not to be deprived or to be required to deprive oneself from pro-creative activity. Finnis turns to an explicit treatment of rights but then observes that his whole book has been about human rights, which he takes to be synonymous with natural rights – “The modern grammar of rights provides a way of expressing virtually all the requirements of practical reasonableness,” the latter phrase, as discussed above, being equivalent for Finnis to the tradition of natural law.Finnis beliefs on human rights enable him to give an alternative expression of the version of natural law he has developed in conjunction with other modern day philosophers such as Grisez and Hohfeld. In answer to the philosophical question as to what it is to have a right Finnis identifies two theories, the benefit theory and the choice theory. The choice theory arises because it regards the benefit theory as seeing rights simply as the reflex of rules which impose duties. H.L.A. Hart taught that possession of a right was to have control over other people’s freedom or, what amounts to the same thing, control over other people’s duties. (duties being limits on freedom, meaning moral freedom or what a person is morally permitted to do). He emphasised this criticising a different answer to the question – what does it mean to have a right? – that having a right consists in being the beneficiary of someone else’s duties. Hart argued that there are some examples where a person is the beneficiary of a duty but does not have a right. He further came to see that the choice theory was inadequate, writing that “the core of the notion of rights is neither individual choice nor individual benefit but basic or fundamental individual needs”. Finnis also sees this as identical with his own notion of basic aspects of human flourishing.
