Hypothetical consent and moral force

Law and Philosophy 10 (3):235 - 270 (1991)
Abstract
This article starts by examining the appeal to hypothetical consent as used by law and economics writers. I argue that their use of this kind of argument has no moral force whatever. I then briefly examine, through some remarks on Rawls and Scanlon, the conditions under which such an argument would have moral force. Finally, I bring these considerations to bear to criticize the argument of judge Frank Easterbrook's majority opinion in Flamm v. Eberstadt.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,351
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA
    Jason Hanna (2011). Consent and the Problem of Framing Effects. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (5):517-531.
    Richard Joyce (2008). Replies. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (1):245-267.
    Richard Joyce (2008). Replies. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (1):245-267.
    Similar books and articles
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2009-01-28

    Total downloads

    19 ( #74,754 of 1,088,370 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    4 ( #24,149 of 1,088,370 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.