Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:05:22.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pacifism: A Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2010

Rodger Beehler
Rodger Beehler
Affiliation:
Universities of Calgary and Victoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes—Discussion
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 584 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis”, first printed in Ethics, Vol. 75 (1965) pp. 259–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Reprinted in R. A. Wasserstrom (ed.) War and Morality (Wadsworth: 1970)Google Scholar and (in a slightly altered form) in Rachels, James (ed.) Moral Problems (Harper and Row: 1971)Google Scholar. My page references are to the Rachels volume.

2 Is there a ‘standard concept (or concepts)’ of rights in our community? (Narveson is concerned to expose a moral confusion so it cannot be any legal concept he has in mind.) I want only to ask whether there is in our community a ‘standard’ concept or concepts of what a person has a rightto. Is there moral agreement in our community as to what a personis morally entitled to? Narveson assumes or implies that there is. It remains to be shown that there is.