Abstract
This Article rejects the following Comparative Conception of rationality: namely, an action is rational only if it can be justified by showing that the reasons for it are better than (or at least as good as) the reasons against it. The Comparative Conception is inconsistent with moral rights, at least on one widespread understanding of such rights. The incommensurability of reasons is the key both to seeing why the Comparative Conception is false and to understanding the kinds of constraints on action moral rights impose.
Recommended Citation
Richard Warner,
Rights, Rationality, and the Preemption of Reasons,
79
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
1091
(2004).
Available at:
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol79/iss3/28
