David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Paul Bloomfield (ed.), Morality and Self-Interest. Oxford University Press (2008)
One of the most difficult and widely discussed questions in recent moral theory is that of the status of human rights—the rights of individuals not to be violated, sacrificed, or used in certain ways, even in the service of valuable ends, either by other individuals or by governments and intermediate institutions. The reason for claiming such things as rights—apart from the natural tendency for rhetoric to escalate—is that they have some claim to be given priority over other values, a claim to be taken care of first, for everyone, even if this cannot be justified by balancing their utility against other components of the general good or general welfare. There is probably no harm in attaching the term “right” to the minima that ought thus to be guaranteed to everyone—provided it does not produce confusion with negative rights, which are likewise equally to be accorded to everyone, and provided it does not beg any questions about the relative priorities between positive and negative rights, should they conflict.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Carla Bagnoli (2009). The Mafioso Case: Autonomy and Self-Respect. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (5):477-493.
Carlos Soto (2013). Killing, Wrongness, and Equality. Philosophical Studies 164 (2):543-559.
Similar books and articles
Alex J. Bellamy (2004). Motives, Outcomes, Intent and the Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (3):216-232.
Fiona Woollard (2008). Intricate Ethics and Inviolability: Frances Kamm's Nonconsequentialism. Ratio 21 (2):231–238.
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (2009). Kamm on Inviolability and Agent-Relative Restrictions. Res Publica 15 (2):165-178.
Henry S. Richardson (2008). Discerning Subordination and Inviolability: A Comment on Kamm's Intricate Ethics. Utilitas 20 (1):81-91.
Nigel Pleasants (2008). Wittgenstein, Ethics and Basic Moral Certainty. Inquiry 51 (3):241 – 267.
Alfonso Gómez-Lobo (2007). Inviolability at Any Age. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (4):311-320.
Saul Smilansky (2006). The Paradox of Moral Complaint. Utilitas 18 (3):284-290.
Claire Ortiz Hill (2010). On Fundamental Differences Between Dependent and Independent Meanings. Axiomathes 20 (2-3):313-332.
David F. Walbert (1973). Abortion, Society, and the Law. Cleveland [Ohio]Press of Case Western Reserve University.
F. M. Kamm (1995). Inviolability. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 20 (1):165-175.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-09-15
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?