We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Rights Enforcement, Trade-offs, and Pluralism.
- Authors
Preda, Adina
- Abstract
This paper asks whether (human) rights enforcement is permissible given that it may entail infringing on the rights of innocent bystanders. I consider two strategies that adopt a rights-sensitive consequentialist framework and offer a positive answer to this question, namely Amartya Sen's and Hillel Steiner's. Against Sen, I argue that trade-offs between rights are problematic since they contradict the purpose of rights, which is to provide a pluralist solution to disagreement about values, i.e. to allow agents to act in accordance with their values. I further argue that Steiner's compensation strategy does not succeed in avoiding trade-offs so it falls prey to the same criticism. I propose a non-trade-off solution that is implicit in the accounts discussed and is more consistent with the meta-ethical framework advocated by Sen. This solution relies on an enforceable duty to share in the costs of rights enforcement hence it entails a degree of redistribution for enforcement purposes.
- Subjects
PLURALISM; HUMAN rights; CONSEQUENTIALISM (Ethics); ENFORCEMENT; CONJOINT analysis
- Publication
Res Publica (13564765), 2011, Vol 17, Issue 3, p227
- ISSN
1356-4765
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1007/s11158-011-9152-4