Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Inviolability
View through CrossRef
Inviolability is a status an entity has when it is impermissible to harm it in certain respects. Inviolability can come in degrees and vary with the characteristics of an individual and in the manner in which we might violate that individual. Aggressors, for example, might not be as inviolable as others, and it may even be permissible to violate innocent, non-threatening individuals in certain ways. The impermissibility of violating someone is based not merely on its being a bad state of affairs for someone to be violated, since someone’s inviolability could make it wrong to violate them even in order to stop worse violations of others. Hence inviolability could interfere with the project of maximizing good outcomes. Still, the good of being an individual of high inviolability is retained by each person – including those who are violated because it is impermissible to violate someone else in order to save them – only if it is impermissible to violate someone in order to produce certain good outcomes. It is possible that someone’s permission, and also agreements made in advance to reduce one’s chance of being violated, could make a violation permissible that would otherwise not be permissible. It is sometimes thought that the historical roots of the idea of inviolability lie in the Kantian idea that persons are to be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means, but it is not clear that this is so.
Title: Inviolability
Description:
Inviolability is a status an entity has when it is impermissible to harm it in certain respects.
Inviolability can come in degrees and vary with the characteristics of an individual and in the manner in which we might violate that individual.
Aggressors, for example, might not be as inviolable as others, and it may even be permissible to violate innocent, non-threatening individuals in certain ways.
The impermissibility of violating someone is based not merely on its being a bad state of affairs for someone to be violated, since someone’s inviolability could make it wrong to violate them even in order to stop worse violations of others.
Hence inviolability could interfere with the project of maximizing good outcomes.
Still, the good of being an individual of high inviolability is retained by each person – including those who are violated because it is impermissible to violate someone else in order to save them – only if it is impermissible to violate someone in order to produce certain good outcomes.
It is possible that someone’s permission, and also agreements made in advance to reduce one’s chance of being violated, could make a violation permissible that would otherwise not be permissible.
It is sometimes thought that the historical roots of the idea of inviolability lie in the Kantian idea that persons are to be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means, but it is not clear that this is so.
Related Results
Qualifying signs of crimes against sexual inviolability of minors
Qualifying signs of crimes against sexual inviolability of minors
Encroachments on sexual inviolability of minors are one of the urgent and acute problems of the international community, a single State and the whole of humanity. This article is d...
Reforming the Institute of Diplomatic Immunity
Reforming the Institute of Diplomatic Immunity
Introduction: the paper carries out a legal analysis of the existing diplomatic immunities and privileges in international law. Currently the principle of immunity of a diplomat ha...
Judicial review
Judicial review
Individual freedom, together with the security of the person, are values to which the fundamental law of the State grants a character of inviolability. This recognition of the sign...
Magnesian Inviolability
Magnesian Inviolability
In 221/20 the citizens of Magnesia on the Maeander sought to create crowned games in honor of Artemis Leukophryene. The goddess had appeared to them and Delphi instructed that "it ...
Bases of criminal legal counteraction to separatism.
Bases of criminal legal counteraction to separatism.
The criminal-law component is the most important element of the state-legal mechanism for combating separatism. The existing system of criminal-law protection of state sovereignty ...
Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v. International Tin Council (No 2)
Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v. International Tin Council (No 2)
211International organizations — Immunity — Attachment and execution — Whether assets of organization liable to attachment to satisfy arbitration award — Discovery of assets — Whet...
Teleworking: A New Reality Conditioned by the Right to Privacy
Teleworking: A New Reality Conditioned by the Right to Privacy
Faced with protecting the right to privacy and, with it, the inviolability of homes, the development of new technologies and the possibility of developing work from home has opened...

