Human richts: Difference atween revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Reveision as o 22:51, 19 November 2010

Human richts is "richts an freedoms that aw humans is enteetelt tae".^[1] Them that propones the concept for ordinar threaps that awbody is endoued wi certain enteetlements juist by raison o bein human alane.^[2]Frae that human richts is conceived in a universalist an egalitarian mainer. Sic enteetlements can exist as shared norms o actual human moralities, as juistifee'd moral norms or naitural richts uphauden bi strang raisons, or as legal richts aither at a naitional level or athin internaitional law.^[3] Housomeiver, there is nae consensus as tae the preceese naitur o whit in parteecular shoud or shoudna be regairdit as a human richt in ony o the aforegane senses, an the abstract concept o human richts haes been a subject o intense philosophical debate an creeticism.

References

↑ Houghton Mifflin Company (2006)
↑ Feldman, David. Civil Liberties & Human Rights in England and Wales. Oxford University Press. p. 5.l
↑ Nickel, James (2009). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Human Rights". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[1] Houghton Mifflin Company (2006)

[2] Feldman, David. Civil Liberties & Human Rights in England and Wales. Oxford University Press. p. 5.l

[3] Nickel, James (2009). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Human Rights". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Human richts''' are "[[richt]]s and [[freedom (politeecal)|freedom]]s tae which aw humans are entitled".<ref>Houghton Mifflin Company (2006)</ref> Proponents of the concept usually assert that everyone is endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of being [[human]].<ref>{{Cite book
+'''Human richts''' is "[[richt]]s an [[freedom (politeecal)|freedom]]s that aw humans is enteetelt tae".<ref>Houghton Mifflin Company (2006)</ref> Them that propones the concept for ordinar threaps that awbody is endoued wi certain enteetlements juist by raison o bein [[human]] alane.<ref>{{Cite book
   | last = Feldman
   | first = David
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
   | doi =
   | id =
-  | isbn = }}l</ref> Human richts are thus conceived in a [[Universality (philosophy)|universalist]] an [[egalitarian]] fashion. Such entitlements can exist as shared norms o actual human moralities, as juistified moral norms or [[natural richts]] supported bi strang reasons, or as [[legal richts]] either at a naitional level or athin [[internaitional law]].<ref>{{cite web
+  | isbn = }}l</ref>Frae that human richts is conceived in a [[Universality (philosophy)|universalist]] an [[egalitarian]] mainer. Sic enteetlements can exist as shared norms o actual human moralities, as juistifee'd moral norms or [[naitural richts]] uphauden bi strang raisons, or as [[legal richts]] aither at a naitional level or athin [[internaitional law]].<ref>{{cite web
 | last = Nickel
 | first = James
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 | editor-last = Zalta
 | editor-first = Edward N.
-| url = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/rights-human/ }}</ref> Housomeivver, there is nae consensus as tae the precise nature o wha in particular shoud or should no be regardit as a human richt in ony o the precedin senses, an the abstract concept o human richts haes been a subject o intense philosophical debate an criticism.
+| url = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/rights-human/ }}</ref> Housomeiver, there is nae consensus as tae the preceese naitur o whit in parteecular shoud or shoudna be regairdit as a human richt in ony o the aforegane senses, an the abstract concept o human richts haes been a subject o intense philosophical debate an creeticism.
 ==References==