Journal of Ethics 4 (1-2):71-98 (2000)
This essay critically examines three theories of moral rights, theBenefit, the Interest, and the Choice theories. The Interest andChoice theories attempt to explain how rights can be more robustthan seems possible on the Benefit theory. In particular, moralrights are supposed to be resistant to trade-offs to supportprincipled anti-paternalism, to constitute a distinct dimensionof morality, and to provide right holders with a range ofdiscretionary choice. I argue that these and other featuresare better yet provided by a fourth theory of moral rights, theJurisdiction theory.
|Keywords||agent-relativity benefit theory choice theory individuated aims interest theory moral rights paternalism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Human Rights, Individualism and Cultural Diversity.Rowan Cruft - 2005 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 8 (3):265-287.
Review Essay / A Libertarian Alternative to Liberal Justice.Gerald F. Gaus - 2000 - Criminal Justice Ethics 19 (2):32-43.
Similar books and articles
Rights: Beyond Interest Theory and Will Theory? [REVIEW]Rowan Cruft - 2004 - Law and Philosophy 23 (4):347 - 397.
Hobbes's Theory of Rights – a Modern Interest Theory.Eleanor Curran - 2002 - Journal of Ethics 6 (1):63-86.
The Will Theory of Rights: A Defence. [REVIEW]Paul Graham - 1996 - Law and Philosophy 15 (3):257 - 270.
Natural Rights to Welfare.Siegfried van Duffel - 2013 - European Journal of Philosophy 21 (4):641-664.
Reconciling Feminist Politics and Feminist Ethics on the Issue of Rights.Samantha Brennan - 1999 - Journal of Social Philosophy 30 (2):260–275.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads52 ( #96,143 of 2,146,177 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #387,123 of 2,146,177 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.