Rights to life? On nature, property and biotechnology

Journal of Political Philosophy

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 154-175

  Meyer, John M ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT DNA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMMODIFICATION; DIAMOND V. CHAKRABARTY; ETHICS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; LIFE; NATURAL SCIENCE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATENT; PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH; PHILOSOPHY; TRANSGENIC ORGANISM; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; DIAMOND V. CHAKRABARTY; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH;

ANIMALS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMMODIFICATION; DNA, RECOMBINANT; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; GENETIC ENGINEERING; LIFE; NATURE; ORGANISMS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; OWNERSHIP; PATENTS; PHILOSOPHY; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034410804     PISSN: 09638016     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9760.00097     Document Type: Article

References (1)

1. Other elements of Locke's political theory, including his emphasis upon consensual government and the provisos that constrain his labor theory, may offer useful guidance in this context. Yet I argue below that his presentation of property as the product of labor mixed with nature contributes to both conceptual confusion and real injustice because of its incoherent account of the distinction between nature and artifice.