Right (n.) is something holy, because it is the embodiment of self-conscious freedom.
A Right (n.) is situated within institutions that embody freedom.
Right (n.) exists only as a branch of a whole — a vine twining itself about a firmly rooted tree.
Right (n.) is any reality that is the realization of the free will — freedom as idea.
Right (n.) as a system is the kingdom of actualized freedom — the world of spirit produced out of itself as a second nature.
Right (n.) is the limitation of my freedom or caprice so that it may subsist alongside every other individual's caprice under a universal law.
A Right (n.) is situated not in the individual, but within legal and political institutions that embody freedom and secure rights for the individual.
Right (n.) lose their reality in the very fact of being recognized as valid — the empty form says nothing of whether what is 'mine' is riches or poverty of spirit.
Right (n.) in an ethical order are had exactly so far as one has duties — if all rights stood on one side and all duties on the other, the whole would break up.
Right (n.) and duties coincide in form but differ in content: a son's rights are not his duties to his father, nor a citizen's rights his duties to his prince.
Right (n.) recognize me only in single relative matters — this house, this sum of money, this specific law — so the satisfaction they give may be as momentary as permanent.
Right (n.) insisted on to the letter often come from a contracted heart: uncivilized man holds fast to his rights, while a more generous disposition sees all sides.
Right (n.) is not right because it is free of contradiction; it is right because it is what is right — and as soon as I start to test it I have begun to tread an unethical path.