Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (1):104-123 (2012)
|Abstract||The recent debate over the nature of rights has been dominated by two rival theories of rights. Proponents of the Will Theory of rights hold that individual freedom, autonomy, control, or sovereignty are somehow to be fundamental to the concept of a right, while proponents of the Interest Theory argue that rights rather protect people's welfare. Participants in this debate commonly assume the existence of a single ‘concept’ of which both theories provide competing descriptions. The aim of this article is to show that both accounts are better understood as providing characterizations of different ‘kinds’ of rights|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Leif Wenar (2005). The Nature of Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (3):223–252.
Siegfried van Duffel (2010). From Objective Right to Subjective Rights: The Franciscans and the Interest and Will Conceptions of Rights. In Virpi Mäkinen (ed.), The Nature of Rights: Moral and Political Aspects of Rights in Late Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy. The Philosophical Society of Finland.
Siegfried Van Duffel (2004). Natural Rights and Individual Sovereignty. Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (2):147–162.
Siegfried van Duffel (forthcoming). Natural Rights to Welfare. European Journal of Philosophy.
James Sherman (2010). A New Instrumental Theory of Rights. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (2).
Rowan Cruft (2004). Rights: Beyond Interest Theory and Will Theory? Law and Philosophy 23 (4):347 - 397.
Joseph Raz (2010). Human Rights Without Foundations. In J. Tasioulas & S. Besson (eds.), The Philosphy of International Law. Oxford University Press.
Katherine Eddy (2006). Welfare Rights and Conflicts of Rights. Res Publica 12 (4).
Tara Smith (1992). On Deriving Rights to Goods From Rights to Freedom. Law and Philosophy 11 (3):217 - 234.
Mark Rowlands (1998). Animal Rights: A Philosophical Defence. St. Martin's Press.
Terrance McConnell (1984). The Nature and Basis of Inalienable Rights. Law and Philosophy 3 (1):25 - 59.
Jennifer Moore (1989). Drug Testing and Corporate Responsibility: The “Ought Implies Can” Argument. Journal of Business Ethics 8 (4):279 - 287.
Added to index2012-03-05
Total downloads21 ( #58,789 of 549,511 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,511 )
How can I increase my downloads?