6/26 and 6/27: The content of human rights
The readings for the first half of this week address the proper content and boundaries of human rights and related issues from a philosophical perspective.A few questions to think about for tomorrow's discussion (and feel free to begin the discussion, or add your own, in comments below).
Holmes and Sunstein on the one hand and Kelley on the other have rather different perspectives on the 'costs' associated with social and economic rights. Which argument is more successful?
What are some of the problems with the distinction between positive and negative rights, as traditionally conceived? What useful purpose does this distinction serve, if any? (How does Shue's argument undermine this distinction?)
Shue argues that traditionally uncontroversial rights about "security" are important for similar reasons as what he calls "subsistence" rights. Why? What are the key premises in his argument? Is his argument successful? Which premises or assertions are problematic?
What are Cranston's main reasons for suspicion about the UDHR? What does he think the status of social and economic entitlements should be? Does this undermine their status as a right?
And finally a "metaquestion" not addressed in the readings per se:
How should we go about settling these questions, since there is no ultimate authority to appeal to in order to find out what human rights *really* are?
posted by David Watkins @ 3:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home