Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Hate Speech, the Priority of Liberty, and the Temptations of Nonideal Theory.Robert S. Taylor - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (3):353-68.
    Are government restrictions on hate speech consistent with the priority of liberty? This relatively narrow policy question will serve as the starting point for a wider discussion of the use and abuse of nonideal theory in contemporary political philosophy, especially as practiced on the academic left. I begin by showing that hate speech (understood as group libel) can undermine fair equality of opportunity for historically-oppressed groups but that the priority of liberty seems to forbid its restriction. This tension between free (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Public Bioethics.Jessica Flanigan - 2013 - Public Health Ethics 6 (2):170-184.
    In this essay I argue that the same considerations that justify the strong commitment to anti-paternalism that has been affirmed in bioethics over the past half century, also calls for anti-paternalistic public health policies. First, I frame the puzzle—why are citizens morally entitled to make unhealthy and medically inadvisable decisions as patients but not as consumers? I then briefly sketch the reasons why bioethicists typically reject paternalism. Next, I argue that those same reasons tell against paternalism in public health ethics (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Against Self-Ownership: There Are No Fact-Insensitive Ownership Rights Over One's Body.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2008 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 36 (1):86–118.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Kant-Bibliographie 2004.Margit Ruffing - 2006 - Kant-Studien 97 (4):483-547.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Against Two Modest Conceptions of Hard Paternalism.William Glod - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2):409-422.
    People in our liberal pluralistic society have conflicting intuitions about the legitimacy of coercive hard paternalism, though respect for agency provides a common source of objection to it. The hard paternalist must give adequate reasons for her coercion which are acceptable to a free and equal agent. Coercion that fails to meet with an agent’s reasonable evaluative commitments is at least problematic and risks being authoritarian. Even if the coercer claims no normative authority over the coercee, the former still uses (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations