indubitable
发表于 2025-3-25 03:34:10
http://reply.papertrans.cn/84/8304/830351/830351_21.png
制造
发表于 2025-3-25 09:59:52
http://reply.papertrans.cn/84/8304/830351/830351_22.png
眨眼
发表于 2025-3-25 15:39:37
http://reply.papertrans.cn/84/8304/830351/830351_23.png
choleretic
发表于 2025-3-25 18:22:56
Socioeconomic Rights,employment, to just and favourable remuneration, and to rest and leisure, including periodic holidays with pay. Everyone is also said to have the right ‘freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits’.
淘气
发表于 2025-3-25 20:23:15
Conclusion,if they are subject to doubt and dispute of this sort? Whatever we might think about the merits of opposing ideas about rights, does not the very existence of those opposing ideas do something to discredit all theories of rights and to undermine the practical aspirations of their proponents?
通情达理
发表于 2025-3-26 01:02:52
http://reply.papertrans.cn/84/8304/830351/830351_26.png
灵敏
发表于 2025-3-26 07:47:55
http://reply.papertrans.cn/84/8304/830351/830351_27.png
Schlemms-Canal
发表于 2025-3-26 11:17:10
Benefits, Choices and Titles,ts? People have generally divided into two schools of thought in answering these questions. On the one hand, there is the ‘benefit’ or ‘interest’ theory of rights; on the other, there is the ‘choice’ or ‘will’ theory. The difference between the two is best explained by returning to the issue of ‘cor
CRANK
发表于 2025-3-26 16:26:36
The Morality of Rights,s. Of these two sorts of right, it is legal rights that have proved the less controversial. Of course, there can be plenty of argument about what legal rights people ought to have, but that they can and do have legal rights is not generally contested. Similarly there is some scope for argument about
OREX
发表于 2025-3-26 17:25:38
http://reply.papertrans.cn/84/8304/830351/830351_30.png