On the application of rights-based moral theories to siting controversies

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 269-275

  Peterson, Martin ^a   Hansson, Sven Ove ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Prima facie right; Residual obligation; Rights based moral theories; Siting controversy

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; HEALTH RISKS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PUBLIC RISKS; RISK PERCEPTION; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

PRIMA FACIE RIGHT; RESIDUAL OBLIGATION; RIGHTS-BASED MORAL THEORIES; SITING CONTROVERSY;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 1242265390     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1366987042000171933     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do Things with Words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Brummer, J. J. (1996) The structure of residual obligations, Journal of Social Philosophy 27, 164-80.
3. Hansson, S. O. and Peterson, M. (2001) Rights, risks, and residual obligations, Risk Decision and Policy 6, 1-10.
4. Joyce, R. (1999) Apologizing, Public Affairs Quarterly, 13, 159-73.
5. Phillips, D. Z. and Price, H. S. (1967) Remorse without repudiation, Analysis 28, 18-20.
6. Ross, W. D. (1930) The Right and the Good, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Williams, B. (1973) Ethical consistency, in Problems of the Self: Philosophical Essays 1956-1972, London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 166-86.
8. Zoch, L. N. (1986) Remorse and regret: a reply to Phillips and Price, Analysis 46, 54-7.