Inalienable Rights: A Defense
by Diana Meyers

She evaluates inalienable rights using the criterion: is this right necessary for moral agency? She is asking a good question, but her answer is muddled. The other criterion she uses is that the right must be superogatory: that is, it must be never morally obligatory to sacrifice this right altruistically. This concept is confusing, and its relevance to the subject is not established.
The right to personal liberty disallows paralyzing agency through imposed conduct but recognizes that the range of options legally available to agents may be restricted justifiably. p. 60
A person must enjoy an excess of an essential commodity before he can be obligated to distribute any of his allotment to others, lacking such an excess, his forgoing any part of his portion for the benefit of others would be superogatory. p. 68
Abridgment of inalienable rights is sometimes permissible. p. 84

Good Points

Year Read: 1995

Back to Libertarian Essays by Roy Halliday
Back to Nonfiction Book Notes
Back to Fiction Book Notes
Back to Book Notes by Author

This page was last updated on October 3, 2011.
This site is maintained by Roy Halliday. If you have any comments or suggestions, please send them to