Are rights really so wrong? A response to Nigel Biggar’s What’s Wrong with Rights
In my response to Nigel Biggar’s book What’s Wrong with Rights, I argue that an epidemic of rights-fundamentalism does not require the complete rejection of all rights language. Rather, it is possible to use rights language in a way that reconceptualizes and broadens our understanding of duty, and a...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2021
|
| In: |
Anglican theological review
Year: 2021, Volume: 103, Issue: 4, Pages: 416-422 |
| Further subjects: | B
Ethics
B Rights B Vitoria B law and theology B Moral Theology |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In my response to Nigel Biggar’s book What’s Wrong with Rights, I argue that an epidemic of rights-fundamentalism does not require the complete rejection of all rights language. Rather, it is possible to use rights language in a way that reconceptualizes and broadens our understanding of duty, and advances our moral discourse and growth in virtue, rather than hindering it. To demonstrate this point, I contrast Biggar’s example of a problematic ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court with a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to rights language demonstrated by a series of cases on free speech in schools issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. I also offer a re-reading of Francisco de Vitoria’s development of rights language to argue that his presentation of rights overcomes many of Biggar’s critiques. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2163-6214 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Anglican theological review
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/00033286211025955 |