Ethics 103 (4):679-706 (1993)
|Abstract||Typical agreements can be seen as joint decisions, inherently involving obligations of a distinctive kind. These obligations derive from the joint commitment' that underlies a joint decision. One consequence of this understanding of agreements and their obligations is that coerced agreements are possible and impose obligations. It is not that the parties to an agreement should always conform to it, all things considered. Unless one is released from the agreement, however, one has some reason to conform to it, whatever else is true. In this sense, one is under an obligation to the other parties. The relevance of these points to the issue of political obligation is discussed.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christopher Johns (2009). The Grounds of Right and Obligation in Leibniz and Hobbes. The Review of Metaphysics 62 (3):551-574.
Jan Narveson (1994). The Agreement to Keep Our Agreements: Hume, Prichard, and Searle. Philosophical Papers 23 (2):75-87.
Margaret Gilbert (2006). A Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society. OUP Oxford.
Joan McGregor (1988). PhilipS on Coerced Agreements. Law and Philosophy 7 (2):225 - 236.
Michael Philips (1984). Are Coerced Agreements Involuntary? Law and Philosophy 3 (1):133 - 145.
Margaret Gilbert (1993). Is an Agreement an Exchange of Promises? Journal of Philosophy 60 (12):627-649.
Margaret P. Gilbert (2009). Obligation and Joint Commitment. Utilitas 11 (02):143-.
Nellie Wieland (2011). Parental Obligation. Utilitas 23 (03):249-267.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #37,982 of 549,196 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,196 )
How can I increase my downloads?