Graduate studies at Western
Ethics 109 (2):236-260 (1999)
|Abstract||Do people have obligations by virtue of the fact that a given country is their country? Actual contract theory says they do because they have agreed to act in certain ways. Contemporary philosophers standardly object in terms of the 'no agreement' objection and the 'not morally binding' objection. I argue that the 'not morally binding' objection is not conclusive. As for the 'no agreement' objection, though actual contract theory succumbs, a closely related plural subject theory of political obligation does not. Plural subject theory may be the truth in actual contract theory and should be explored in its stead.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paul F. Hodapp (1990). Can There Be a Social Contract with Business? Journal of Business Ethics 9 (2):127 - 131.
Gerald Gaus (2009). Recognized Rights as Devices of Public Reason. Philosophical Perspectives 23 (1):111-136.
Jeffery A. Thompson & David W. Hart (2006). Psychological Contracts: A Nano-Level Perspective on Social Contract Theory. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 68 (3):229 - 241.
Gordon G. Sollars (2002). The Corporation as Actual Agreement. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (3):351-370.
Daniel Schwartz (2008). Francisco Suárez on Consent and Political Obligation. Vivarium 46 (1):59-81.
Jeffery A. Thompson & David W. Hart (2005). Psychological Contracts. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 16:38-43.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2009). We and the Plural Subject. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (2):235-259.
Kimberly K. Smith (2008). Animals and the Social Contract. Environmental Ethics 30 (2):195-207.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #42,005 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?