Kant and Property Rights in Body Parts
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8107655 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Stephen R Munzer (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1993 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 319-341 |
| Publication date | 1993-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0841-8209 • E-ISSN: 2056-4260 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0841820900001946 |
| OpenAlex | W2201348529 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 9 |
A “human being,” Kant writes, “is not entitled to sell his limbs for money, even if he were offered ten thousand thalers for a single finger” (LE 124). This arresting statement is part of a broader position of Kant’s according to which persons lack property rights in parts of their own bodies. One can find in his work at least three arguments in support of this position. One is an argument from human freedom. It is riddled with difficulties. The second is an argument from humanity and dignity. It has general appeal but does little to justify Kant’s verdict on some of his own examples. The last is an argument from self-respect. It has some force. Yet, unless one tempers the Kant of moral opinion with the Kant of moral theory, this argument sometimes delivers unacceptable answers to casuistical questions
Appeal · Argument (complex analysis · Dignity · Epistemology · Human rights · Humanity · Law and economics · Political science · Property (philosophy · Sociology · Statement (logic · Verdict · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Political Philosophy and Ethics · War, Ethics, and Justification · Law · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,26 |
| Citation span | 2007 - 2019 (13) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |