Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):255-285 (2005)
|Abstract||In chapter four of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick raised interesting questions about whether or not it is ever morally acceptable to act against what are agreed to be an individual's natural moral rights. The pursuit of these questions opens up issues concerning the specific content of these individual rights. This essay explores Nozick's questions by posing examples and using our considered responses to them to specify the shape of individual rights. The exploration provisionally concludes that a conception of individual moral rights quite different from Nozick's looks attractive and merits further development. Footnotesa I thank Ellen Frankel Paul for helpful, constructive, and substantive comments on a prior draft of this essay. It goes without saying that her comments outstripped my ability to respond.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Terrance McConnell (1984). The Nature and Basis of Inalienable Rights. Law and Philosophy 3 (1):25 - 59.
Michael Zuckert (2005). Natural Rights and Imperial Constitutionalism: The American Revolution and the Development of the American Amalgam. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):27-55.
Peter Vallentyne (2007). Review of Dale F. Murray, Nozick, Autonomy and Compensation. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (12).
Ralf M. Bader & John Meadowcroft (eds.) (2011). The Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Cambridge University Press.
Christopher W. Morris (2005). Natural Rights and Political Legitimacy. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):314-329.
Helga Varden (2009). Nozick's Reply to the Anarchist. Law and Philosophy 28 (6):585 - 616.
John Hasnas (2005). Toward a Theory of Empirical Natural Rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):111-147.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #31,833 of 548,969 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,969 )
How can I increase my downloads?