View topic on PhilPapers for more information
Related categories

8 found
Order:
More results on PhilPapers
  1. Consent and the Mere Means Principle.Samuel Kahn - 2022 - Journal of Value Inquiry:1-19.
    Kant’s Formula of Humanity can be analyzed into two parts. One is an injunction to treat humanity always as an end. The other is a prohibition on using humanity as a mere means. The second is often referred to as the FH prohibition or the mere means prohibition. It has become popular to interpret this prohibition in terms of consent. The idea is that, if X uses Y's humanity as a means and Y does not consent to it, then X (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Why It is Disrespectful to Violate Rights: Contractualism and the Kind-Desire Theory.Janis Schaab - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (1):97-116.
    The most prominent theories of rights, the Will Theory and the Interest Theory, notoriously fail to accommodate all and only rights-attributions that make sense to ordinary speakers. The Kind-Desire Theory, Leif Wenar’s recent contribution to the field, appears to fare better in this respect than any of its predecessors. The theory states that we attribute a right to an individual if she has a kind-based desire that a certain enforceable duty be fulfilled. A kind-based desire is a reason to want (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Specters and Possession of Neoliberal Democracy: Contemporary Critical Political Philosophies and the Legacy of C.B. Macpherson.Mariusz Turowski - 2015 - In A. K. Çüçen & M. Becermen (eds.), Gelenek, Demokrasi ve Felsefe /Tradition, Democracy, and Philosophy. Uludağ Üniversitesi. pp. 318-326.
    The paper is a part of the project of retrieving C.B. Macpherson’s thesis of possessive individualism and his contribution to investigations about democratic theory and the “Western political ontology” valuable especially in today’s context of expansion, crisis and – arguably – subsequent, experienced today, revival of the project of “neoliberal democracy”. The aim of my paper is to present theory of possessive individualism as the missing center of critical theory of democracy. The task is conducted through a brief reconstruction of (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Are Economic Liberties Basic Rights?Jeppe von Platz - 2014 - Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 13 (1):23-44.
    In this essay I discuss a powerful challenge to high-liberalism: the challenge presented by neoclassical liberals that the high-liberal assumptions and values imply that the full range of economic liberties are basic rights. If the claim is true, then the high-liberal road from ideals of democracy and democratic citizenship to left-liberal institutions is blocked. Indeed, in that case the high-liberal is committed to an institutional scheme more along the lines of laissez-faire capitalism than property-owning democracy. To present and discuss this (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  5. Abortion, Libertarianism, and Evictionism: A Last Word.Jakub Wiśniewski - 2013 - Libertarian Papers 5:153-162.
    This paper is my last word, in the present journal, in the debate I have been having with Walter Block on the subject of evictionism as an alleged libertarian “third way,” capable of transcending the familiar “pro-life” and “pro-choice” dichotomy. In this debate, I myself defended what might be regarded as a qualified “pro-life” position, while Block consistently argued that the mother is morally allowed to expel the fetus from her womb provided that no non-lethal methods of its eviction are (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Providing for Rights.Donald C. Hubin & Mark B. Lambeth - 1988 - Dialogue 27 (3):489-.
    Gauthier's version of the Lockean proviso (in Morals by Agreement) is inappropriate as the foundation for moral rights he takes it to be. This is so for a number of reasons. It lacks any proportionality test thus allowing arbitrarily severe harms to others to prevent trivial harms to oneself. It allows one to inflict any harm on another provided that if one did not do so, someone else would. And, by interpreting the notion of bettering or worsening one's position in (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7. Social Justice in the Modern Regulatory State: Duress, Necessity and the Consensual Model in Law.Lucinda Vandervort - 1987 - Law and Philosophy 6 (2):205 - 225.
    This paper examines the role of the consensual model in law and argues that if substantive justice is to be the goal of law, the use of individual choice as a legal criterion for distributive and retributive purposes must be curtailed and made subject to substantive considerations. Substantive justice arguably requires that human rights to life, well-being, and the commodities essential to life and well-being, be given priority whenever a societal decision is made. If substantive justice is a collective societal (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Reflections on the Foundations of Human Rights.Thomas M. Besch - manuscript
    Is there an approach to human rights that justifies rights-allocating moral-political principles as principles that are equally acceptable by everyone to whom they apply, while grounding them in categorical, reasonably non-rejectable foundations? The paper examines Rainer Forst’s constructivist attempt to provide such an approach. I argue that his view, far from providing an alternative to “ethical” approaches, depends for its own reasonableness on a reasonably contestable conception of the good, namely, the good of constitutive discursive standing. This suggests a way (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark