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


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



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,127

External links

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

Through your library


Added to PP

12 (#1,115,280)

6 months
26 (#116,274)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

William J. Talbott
University of Washington

References found in this work

Political Liberalism.John Rawls - 1993 - Columbia University Press.
The law of peoples.John Rawls - 1999 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Edited by John Rawls.

View all 23 references / Add more references