Graduate studies at Western
Ethics 79 (4):309-315 (1969)
|Abstract||The central purpose of the paper is to elucidate the inalienable rights thesis, I.E. That there is at least one inalienable right. Various senses of 'natural right' and 'inalienable' are analyzed so as to further clarify what is or could be the meaning and the truth of that thesis. A widespread confusion between the meaning of the terms 'inalienable natural right' and 'indefeasible natural right' is dispelled. It is concluded that present thinking about inalienable natural rights does not reveal precisely why and in what sense there is such a right. A successful defense of the inalienable rights thesis is suggested|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
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.
Frank J. Leavitt (1992). Inalienable Rights. Philosophy 67 (259):115 - 118.
John O. Nelson (1989). Are There Inalienable Rights? Philosophy 64 (250):519 - 524.
Stuart M. Brown Jr (1955). Inalienable Rights. Philosophical Review 64 (2):192-211.
William K. Frankena (1955). Natural and Inalienable Rights. Philosophical Review 64 (2):212-232.
Arthur Kuflik (1986). The Utilitarian Logic of Inalienable Rights. Ethics 97 (1):75-87.
Terrance McConnell (1984). The Nature and Basis of Inalienable Rights. Law and Philosophy 3 (1):25 - 59.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #189,403 of 739,168 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,168 )
How can I increase my downloads?