Human Rights instruments have not been applied equally to all people. This is evidenced
by the development of additional treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the
Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There is also no
universal set of rights for animals suggesting we think differently about the rights of
living creatures. This thesis drew upon three philosophical frameworks of rights –
morality, moral sentiment and equality – to explore the dimensions that university
students use to consider the rights of children, people with disabilities and animals. It
examined whether people define rights of these populations differently, and what
theoretical dimensions underlie those definitions. The Concepts of Rights Questionnaire
was administered and significant differences were found in participants’ support for
physical punishment and euthanasia depending on the target population as well as their
underlying theoretical belief. The results affirm that participants do not apply a universal
set of rights standards to the three populations.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:MANITOBA/oai:mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca:1993/5075 |
| Date | 11 January 2012 |
| Creators | Skaftfeld, Erika Kelsey |
| Contributors | Durrant, Joan E (Family Social Sciences), Roger, Kerstin (Family Social Sciences) Waldock, Thomas (School of Social Development, Child & Family Studies, Nipissing University) |
| Source Sets | University of Manitoba Canada |
| Detected Language | English |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds