Graduate studies at Western
Law and Philosophy 3 (1):25 - 59 (1984)
|Abstract||This paper has two purposes. One is primarily (but not exclusively) conceptual and the other is normative. The first aim is to say what inalienable rights are. To explain this, inalienable rights are contrasted with the notions of forfeitable rights and absolute rights. A recent novel analysis of inalienable rights by Feinberg is explained and criticized. The first task is concluded by discussing what duties inalienable rights imply. The second aim is to see what moral principles, if any, justify designating some rights as inalienable. The claim of Nozick and others that inalienable rights must be paternalistically grounded is examined and rejected. After a brief critical discussion of the Lockean and Hobbesean accounts of the basis of inalienable rights, it is argued that the harm principle can serve as an adequate ground for categorizing at least the right to life (and perhaps other rights) as inalienable.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
B. A. Richards (1969). Inalienable Rights: Recent Criticism and Old Doctrine. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 29 (3):391-404.
Stuart M. Brown Jr (1955). Inalienable Rights. Philosophical Review 64 (2):192-211.
Siegfried van Duffel (forthcoming). Natural Rights to Welfare. European Journal of Philosophy.
John O. Nelson (1989). Are There Inalienable Rights? Philosophy 64 (250):519 - 524.
Frank J. Leavitt (1992). Inalienable Rights. Philosophy 67 (259):115 - 118.
Marvin Schiller (1969). Are There Any Inalienable Rights? Ethics 79 (4):309-315.
A. Wertheimer (2001). Terrance McConnell, Inalienable Rights. Law and Philosophy 20 (5):541-551.
Eric Chwang (2008). Against the Inalienable Right to Withdraw From Research. Bioethics 22 (7):370-378.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads53 ( #23,204 of 739,396 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,396 )
How can I increase my downloads?