Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 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   28 citations  
  • On environmental justice, Part II: non-absolute equal division of rights to the natural world.Joseph Mazor - 2023 - Economics and Philosophy 39 (2):256-284.
    This article considers whether any interpretation of the idea of equal claims to the natural world can resolve the Canyon Dilemma (i.e. can justify protecting the Grand Canyon but not a small canyon from mining by a poor generation). It first considers and ultimately rejects the idea of subjecting natural resource rights to an intergenerational equal division. It then demonstrates that a pluralist theory of environmental justice committed to both respect for the separateness of persons and to the collective good (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Libertarianism without self-ownership.Chandran Kukathas - 2019 - Social Philosophy and Policy 36 (2):71-93.
    :Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose defenders have set its foundations in the principle of self-ownership. But self-ownership supplies an uncertain basis for such a theory as it is prone to a number of serious difficulties, some of which have been addressed by libertarians but none of which can ultimately be overcome. For libertarianism to be a plausible way of looking at the world, it must look elsewhere for its basic principles. In particular, it needs to rethink the way it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The compatibility of effective self-ownership and joint world ownership.Magnus Jedenheim-Edling - 2005 - Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (3):284–304.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Kant on Welfare: Five Unsuccessful Defences.Luke J. Davies - 2020 - Kantian Review 25 (1):1-25.
    This article discusses five attempts at justifying the provision of welfare on Kantian grounds. I argue that none of the five proposals is satisfactory. Each faces a serious challenge on textual or systematic grounds. The conclusion to draw from this is not that a Kantian cannot defend the provision of welfare. Rather, the conclusion to draw is that the task of defending the provision of welfare on Kantian grounds is a difficult one whose success we should not take for granted.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations