Journal of Ethics 12 (1):105 - 122 (2008)
|Abstract||In this essay, I first evaluate the conceptual analysis of human rights by Wilfried Hinsch and Markus Stepanians. Next I criticize Allen Buchanan’s claim that Rawls did not address basic human interests/capabilities theories of human nature. I argue Buchanan is doubly mistaken when he claims that John Rawls sought to avoid such theories because they are comprehensive doctrines. Then I evaluate David Reidy’s defense of Rawls, while questioning his efforts to show how Rawls’s list of human rights could be expanded. Finally, I accept James Nickel’s argument that Rawls has tied human rights too closely to intervention on their behalf. However, I reject his, and by implication Rawls’s, refusal to accept a two-tiered approach to human rights.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Russell Disilvestro (2005). Human Embryos in the Original Position? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (3):285 – 304.
Saladin Meckled-Garcia (2004). International Justice, Human Rights and Neutrality. Res Publica 10 (2).
Antonio Pérez-Estévez (2007). May Western Rights, by Extension, Become Human Rights? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 3:61-72.
Chris Naticchia (2005). The Law of Peoples: The Old and the New. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (3):353-369.
John Tasioulas (2009). Are Human Rights Essentially Triggers for Intervention? Philosophy Compass 4 (6):938-950.
Burleigh T. Wilkins (2007). Principles for the Law of Peoples. Journal of Ethics 11 (2):161 - 175.
David A. Reidy (2004). Rawls on International Justice: A Defense. Political Theory 32 (3):291-319.
Joseph Raz (2010). Human Rights Without Foundations. In J. Tasioulas & S. Besson (eds.), The Philosphy of International Law. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #31,973 of 549,224 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,224 )
How can I increase my downloads?