Bibliographic record
Abstract
An international workshop entitled Human Rights and Access to Essential Medicines: The Way Forward was held from September 30 to October 2, 2005 in Montréal, Canada. At the conclusion of the workshop, the participants drafted the Montréal Statement on the Human Right to Essential Medicines, which was reprinted in a paper written by Thomas Pogge. Article 3 of the statement claims that we have a responsibility to achieve a social and international order in which human rights—including the right to essential medicines—are fully realized and that this obligation must be recognized and reflected in the design of institutions and policies. I examine that claim in this essay, and argue that if the concept of rights is understood as liberal rights, then the claim is dubious. Liberal rights imply an individualistic moral perspective that not all moral traditions endorse, including Daoism. This will be shown by analyzing the nature of liberal rights in terms of atomism, the philosophical doctrine that Charles Taylor uses to characterize liberal thought.\n於 2005 年9 月30 日至10 月2 日期間，在加拿大蒙特利爾(Montréal) 一個討論人權及基本藥物獲取的研討會上，與會者草擬了一份名為〈蒙特利爾獲取基本藥物的人權宣言〉 (以下簡稱〈宣言〉)。該〈宣言〉主要是針對貧窮國家的人民無法獲得基本藥物去治療一些普通的疾病，而備受痛苦煎熬的狀況，並指出“我們有責任去達成一種社會的和國際的秩序，在這種秩序中的人權，包括取得基本藥物的權利，是獲得充分實現的。這項責任必須在制度和政制策劃上確認及體現出來。在個別國家及全球層面上，那些政策、規則和制度必須促使‘取得基本藥物’這一權利得以實現。”本文並不反對為貧國人民爭取合理的待遇，本文所要探討的是〈宣言〉把社會及國際秩序奠基在人權 (包括取得基本藥物的權利) 是否有充分的理論根據這一問題。本文的基本論旨是：人權倘若被理解為一種自由主義式的自然權利，那麼人權就並非人類的共同道德的核心。本文通過泰勒 (Charles Taylor) 稱之為“原子論 ”(Atomism) 的一種社會哲學觀點來說明自由主義式的自然權利的性質，並由此而證成上述論旨。如此一來，〈宣言〉把社會及國際秩序奠基在人權(包括取得基本藥物的權利)是否有充分的理論根據就不無疑問。
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".