Pogge -vs- Sen on Global Poverty and Human Rights
dc.contributor.author | Vizard, Polly | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-02-03T22:43:08Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-02-03T22:43:08Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2006 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://ethique-economique.net/ | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1866/3357 | |
dc.publisher | Centre de recherche en éthique de l'Université de Montréal | |
dc.subject | Philosophy | en |
dc.subject | Ethics | en |
dc.subject | Economics | en |
dc.title | Pogge -vs- Sen on Global Poverty and Human Rights | en |
dc.type | Article | en |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Université de Montréal. Faculté des arts et des sciences. Centre de recherche en éthique | fr |
dcterms.abstract | This Paper is part of a broader project examining the ways in which Amartya Sen’s “capability approach” provides a framework for thinking about global poverty as a denial or a violation of basic human rights. The Paper compares the “capability approach” as a basis for thinking about global poverty and human rights with the alternative framework developed by Thomas Pogge. Both the “capability approach” and Pogge’s theory of “severe poverty as a violation of negative duties” support the idea of “freedom from severe poverty as a basic human right”. However, there are important differences. The Paper examines the limitations of Pogge’s “apparent minimalism” and establishes the ways in which Sen’s treatment of the “capability approach” and human rights moves beyond a “minimalist normative position” whilst avoiding Pogge’s charge of “implausibility”. | en |
dcterms.isPartOf | urn:ISSN:1639-1306 | |
dcterms.language | eng | en |
UdeM.VersionRioxx | Version publiée / Version of Record | |
oaire.citationTitle | Éthique et économique = Ethics and economics | |
oaire.citationVolume | 3 | |
oaire.citationIssue | 2 |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
This document disseminated on Papyrus is the exclusive property of the copyright holders and is protected by the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42). It may be used for fair dealing and non-commercial purposes, for private study or research, criticism and review as provided by law. For any other use, written authorization from the copyright holders is required.