Philosophy Research Archives 14:51-72 (1988)
Several philosophers, including most prominently Theodore Benditt, have recently urged that the discourse of rights, widely thought to be a central, if not foundational feature of moral and political thought, is in reality a mere “redundant” appendage---a discourse that holds no distinctive place in moral or legal reasoning owing to the fact that it is thoroughly derivative because collapsible into other forms of moral or legal language. In this paper I attempt to (1) flesh out this “Redundancy” Thesis (RT) and (2) identify and criticize at least two general arguments that might be thought to give rise to it: the claims that rights reduce (respectively) to duties (the Correlativity Thesis) or to permissions (the Permissibility Thesis). I try to show how and why these arguments fail and why they do not therefore support RT
|Keywords||Contemporary Philosophy History of Philosophy|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Animal Rights: Autonomy and Redundancy. [REVIEW]David Sztybel - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):259-273.
Collective Rights and Minority Rights.Seumas Miller - 2000 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 14 (2):241-257.
Kamm and Miller on Rights' Compatibility.Rowan Cruft - 2010 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (4):393 - 401.
Rights Without Dignity? Some Critical Reflections on Habermas's Procedural Model of Law and Democracy.Jon Mahoney - 2001 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 27 (3):21-40.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads15 ( #302,936 of 2,146,310 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #120,191 of 2,146,310 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.