Law and Philosophy 29 (5):571-599 (2010)
AbstractLiberal-contractarian philosophies of justice see the unjust systems of slavery and autocracy in the past as being based on coercion—whereas the social order in modern democratic market societies is based on consent and contract. However, the ‘best’ case for slavery and autocracy in the past were consent-based contractarian arguments. Hence, our first task is to recover those ‘forgotten’ apologia for slavery and autocracy. To counter those consent-based arguments, the historical anti-slavery and democratic movements developed a theory of inalienable rights. Our second task is to recover that theory and to consider several other applications of the theory. Finally, the liberal theories of justice expounded by John Rawls and by Robert Nozick are briefly examined from this perspective.
Similar books and articles
International Justice, Human Rights and Neutrality.Saladin Meckled-Garcia - 2004 - Res Publica 10 (2):153-174.
The Nature and Basis of Inalienable Rights.Terrance McConnell - 1984 - Law and Philosophy 3 (1):25 - 59.
Past Wrongs and Liberal Justice.Michael Freeman - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (2):201-220.
Inalienable Rights: The Limits of Consent in Medicine and Law.Terrance C. McConnell - 2000 - Oup Usa.
The Democratic Firm: An Argument Based on Ordinary Jurisprudence.David Ellerman - 1999 - Journal of Business Ethics 21 (2-3):111 - 124.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Labour Theory of Property and Marginal Productivity Theory.David Ellerman - 2016 - Economic Thought 5 (1):19.
Does Classical Liberalism Imply Democracy?David Ellerman - 2015 - Ethics and Global Politics 8 (1):29310.
Privacy, Interests, and Inalienable Rights.Adam D. Moore - 2018 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 5 (2):327-355.
Self-Ownership and Despotism: Locke on Property in the Person, Divine Dominium of Human Life, and Rights-Forfeiture.Johan Olsthoorn - 2019 - Social Philosophy and Policy 36 (2):242-263.