Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHogan, David
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-16T18:28:39Z
dc.date.available2011-05-16T18:28:39Z
dc.date.issued2011-05-16
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10222/13689
dc.description.abstractHistorically, there have been two moral theories which have dominated the analysis of 'intellectual property': Natural law theory and Utilitarianism. The former argues that authors have an inalienable right to control the products of their minds while the latter argues that the moral status of a law establishing 'intellectual property' is inextricably tied to the attempt to maximize societal well-being. In this thesis I argue that few justifiable natural rights to the products of our minds can be found and, subsequently, the justification of such rights must stem from the latter theory. I argue that Utilitarianism places many strong limitations on the extensiveness of the powers granted to 'intellectual property' right-holders by a moral law. Finally, I argue that independent of a given societal state-of-affairs, we have two moral obligations: to follow the trend set by moral authors, and to lend them our support.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectEthicsen_US
dc.subjectIntellectual Propertyen_US
dc.subjectNatural Rightsen_US
dc.subjectUtilitarianismen_US
dc.titleMoral Groundworks for the Establishment and Analysis of Rights to 'Intellectual Property'en_US
dc.date.defence2011-04-29
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Philosophyen_US
dc.contributor.degreeMaster of Artsen_US
dc.contributor.external-examinerDr. Chike Jeffersen_US
dc.contributor.graduate-coordinatorDr. Michael Hymersen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-readerDr. Nathan Bretten_US
dc.contributor.thesis-supervisorDr. Darren Abramsonen_US
dc.contributor.ethics-approvalNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.manuscriptsNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.copyright-releaseNot Applicableen_US
 Find Full text

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record