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)
DOI 10.1086/291740
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,172
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Terrance McConnell, Inalienable Rights.Alan Wertheimer - 2001 - Law and Philosophy 20 (5):541-551.
Inalienable Rights.Frank J. Leavitt - 1992 - Philosophy 67 (259):115 - 118.
Are There Inalienable Rights?John O. Nelson - 1989 - Philosophy 64 (250):519 - 524.
Inalienable Rights.Stuart M. Brown - 1955 - Philosophical Review 64 (2):192-211.
Natural and Inalienable Rights.William K. Frankena - 1955 - Philosophical Review 64 (2):212-232.
The Nature and Basis of Inalienable Rights.Terrance McConnell - 1984 - Law and Philosophy 3 (1):25 - 59.


Added to PP index

Total views
42 ( #271,674 of 2,517,823 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #409,482 of 2,517,823 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes