Reply to Critics: In Defense of One Kind of Epistemically Modest But Metaphysically Immodest Liberalism [Book Review]

Human Rights Review 9 (2):193-212 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this reply to his three critics, Talbott develops several important themes from his book, Which Rights Should Be Universal?, in ways that go beyond the discussion in the book. Among them are the following: the prescriptive role of human rights theory; the need to guarantee an expansive list of basic rights as a basis for a government to be able to claim recognitional legitimacy; the futility of trying to define human rights in terms of what there can be reasonable disagreement about; and the problems for any proceduralist account of human rights. Talbott also further elaborates his consequentialist defense of basic human rights and his arguments against cultural relativism about human rights

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,140

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Human Rights and Human Well-Being.William Talbott - 2010 - Oxford University Press.
Which Rights Should Be Universal?William Talbott - 2005 - Oxford University Press.
Henry Shue on Basic Rights: A Defense. [REVIEW]Jordan Kiper - 2011 - Human Rights Review 12 (4):505-514.
Human Rights and Toleration in Rawls.Mitch Avila - 2011 - Human Rights Review 12 (1):1-14.
Self-determination as a universal human right.Cindy Holder - 2006 - Human Rights Review 7 (4):5-18.
Human Rights Enjoyment in Theory and Activism.Brooke Ackerly - 2011 - Human Rights Review 12 (2):221-239.
Religion, Religions, and Human Rights.Louis Henkin - 1998 - Journal of Religious Ethics 26 (2):229-239.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-24

Downloads
12 (#805,104)

6 months
1 (#447,993)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

William J. Talbott
University of Washington