David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics 79 (4):309-315 (1969)
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|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
A. Wertheimer (2001). Terrance McConnell, Inalienable Rights. Law and Philosophy 20 (5):541-551.
Arthur Kuflik (1986). The Utilitarian Logic of Inalienable Rights. Ethics 97 (1):75-87.
William K. Frankena (1955). Natural and Inalienable Rights. Philosophical Review 64 (2):212-232.
Stuart M. Brown Jr (1955). Inalienable Rights. Philosophical Review 64 (2):192-211.
John O. Nelson (1989). Are There Inalienable Rights? Philosophy 64 (250):519 - 524.
Frank J. Leavitt (1992). Inalienable Rights. Philosophy 67 (259):115 - 118.
Eric Chwang (2008). Against the Inalienable Right to Withdraw From Research. Bioethics 22 (7):370-378.
Terrance McConnell (1984). The Nature and Basis of Inalienable Rights. Law and Philosophy 3 (1):25 - 59.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #178,728 of 1,088,426 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,426 )
How can I increase my downloads?