What Would the Philosopher Say?

In class today, it was mentioned that Plato's theory of justice counters the discourse of rights. Rights are goals that are both high priority and definite in the sense of having specific beneficiaries and addressees. The addressees (or duty bearers) are those who must act to make available the freedom or benefit identified by the right's scope. Because addressees are an important element of rights, rights discourse does not correlate with Plato's idea of justice. According to Plato, "...justice is doing one's own work and not meddling with what isn't one's own." Therefore, the addressees of rights would be qualified as unjust to Plato for interfering with others. The entitlement theory- which holds that a right is a very strong moral reason why people sholud have a certainfreedom, power, protection, or benefit- may be more acceptable to him.
I believe that Kant would be more accepting towards the discourse of rights since deontology is based on principles and obligations. A rational agent could interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a list of maxims. In addition to that, his Universal Law of Justice states that one ought to act externally in such a way that the free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone. In following the Universal Law of Justice you would at least be respecting the negative rights of others (i.e. a secure claim against severly cruel or dehumanizing treatment and a secure claim against unfair treatment) because you would be treating others as you want to be treated. So what do you guys think? what would some of the ohter philosophers argue?