지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
There are three Tiers of Rights: natural, individual quality of life, and group identity. Natural Rights are preeminent among these. Quality of Life Rights are of a progressive type that would enhance and/or displace Natural Rights. Identity Group Rights are growing in victim-affirming efforts to address past wrongs according to whims of various Group memberships at the expense of Natural Rights. The purpose of government is to protect and nurture natural rights ? life, liberty, and property. All else is left to the holders of those natural rights to respond to the needs of the people around them (the needy). The advantage of such a conservative government-populace relationship is that the people will find support for such social action as the populace believes to be moral and right. Although natural rights primarily concern life, liberty and property, they do encompass principles of anti-discrimination. However, these anti-discrimination principles being twisted from their original, natural rights, meaning and used to justify government action in support of lesser rights of the governed. While American government was conceived as the protector of Natural Rights through limited interaction with the governed, second and third tier rights demand more government interference with the governed in order to placate the needy: this is what may be called “big government.” Central to second and third tier rights is the concept of immutable characteristics. Immutability is a legal concept in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence that says that only groups identified by unchangeable characteristics need protection against the violation of rights. Progressives seek to expand the definition of “immutable” so that identity groups that are not linked by immutable characteristics may lay claims against the natural rights of outgroup members. The purpose of government is simply to protect and nurture natural rights. All else is left to the holders of those natural rights to respond to the needs of the people around them (those in need). A governments’ primary purpose should be to protect natural rights, leaving it to the holders of those right to address the problems of those in need. As such, public (private) support for social “needs” that are deemed “unworthy” will naturally wane. No intrusion upon the natural rights that exist above all others in fellow members of the population need be made. Private social action, then, is most effective, autonomous (from government intrusion), and responsive to the ebb and flow of social mores. Regarding abortion, the government which governs the least need proclaim only a prohibition against murder (illicit homicide). When it presumes to be more precise than such a general prohibition it falls prey to the machinations of various interest groups that would seek to define “life” in a manner most responsive to their cause, requiring government to cater to an ever-expanding number of interest groups regarding their private definitions. Static religious definitions of “life” may conflict with interest group definitions, but those differences are not for the government to settle fully and finally. Regarding its pending legislation on abortion, due for resolution at the end of 2020, Korea should rely upon its general criminal homicide legislation to include prohibitions of abortions, and not endeavor to address the matter separately.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
벤담의 자연권 비판과 공리주의
철학연구
2021 .10
-
중국특색의 인권정책과 그 함의-보편적 인권개념과의 비교를 중심으로-
철학∙사상∙문화
2018 .01
-
인권과 여성권리의 딜레마 - 여성주의 관점에서 인권 변화에 대한 연구 -
시대와 철학
2019 .01
-
인권정책기본법안의 추진과 상대적 인권의 한계
교회와 법
2022 .02
-
인문학과 인권
인문학연구
2017 .01
-
Who Thinks and Behaves According to Human Rights?: Evidence from the Korean National Human Rights Survey
Korea Observer
2015 .03
-
보편 인권과 다원성의 조화 : 하버마스의 이중적 인권 개념을 바탕으로
철학사상
2018 .05
-
牟宗三論社會主義
Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture
2019 .02
-
정보권의 사회윤리적 기초
기독교사회윤리
2021 .12
-
‘영원성(eternity)’으로 향하는 그리스도교 신자의 권리: 기초·제한·보장
가톨릭신학
2024 .06
-
인간과 시민, 자유와 평등 사이 - 아렌트와 발리바르의 인권과 시민권의 정치 -
철학논집
2016 .11
-
마르크스의 인권관
동서철학연구
2018 .01
-
근대 초기 유럽 자연법의 세계관과 정치사상
역사교육
2021 .09
-
헌법 관점에서 본 ‘서울대학교 인권헌장(안)’의 문제점
교회와 법
2021 .08
-
“의료서비스는 인권이다!”-‘자유여름’ 시기 미국 인권의료위원회 활동을 중심으로-
서양사론
2019 .01
-
‘인권의 정치’를 위한 공화주의
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
2019 .12
-
한국 기독교인의 인권 의식 분석 : 2022년 인권 의식 실태조사를 중심으로
기독교교육정보
2024 .12
-
한반도 통일과 인권의 층위
시대와 철학
2018 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0