Against individualistic justifications of property rights

Utilitas 18 (2):154-172 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this article I argue that, despite the views of such theorists as Locke, Hart and Raz, most of a person's property rights cannot be individualistically justified. Instead most property rights, if justified at all, must be justified on non-individualistic (e.g. consequentialist) grounds. This, I suggest, implies that most property rights cannot be morally fundamental ‘human rights’.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,401

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
290 (#98,023)

6 months
6 (#572,300)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Rowan Cruft
University of Stirling

Citations of this work

XI-Why is it Disrespectful to Violate Rights?Rowan Cruft - 2013 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 113 (2pt2):201-224.
Freedom to Roam.Matthias Brinkmann - 2022 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 21 (2):209-233.
Could there be a right to own intellectual property?James Wilson - 2009 - Law and Philosophy 28 (4):393 - 427.
Compensation and continuity.Sandy Steel - 2020 - Legal Theory 26 (3):250-279.
Why aren't duties rights&quest.Rowan Cruft - 2006 - Philosophical Quarterly 56 (223):175-192.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Are there any natural rights?Herbert Hart - 1955 - Philosophical Review 64 (2):175-191.
Original acquisition of private property.L. Wenar - 1998 - Mind 107 (428):799-820.
Projects and Property.John T. Sanders - 2002 - In David Schmidtz, Robert Nozick. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Add more references