David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Law and Philosophy 11 (4):385-402 (1992)
The question What makes a promise binding? has received much attention both from philosophers and lawyers. One argument is that promises are binding because the act of making a promise creates expectations in the promisee, which expectations it would be morally wrong to disappoint. Another argument is grounded in the effects engendered by the making of a promise, specifically actions taken in reliance upon the promise. These two positions, the so-called expectation and reliance theories, have traditionally been thought to be incommensurable. In a recent article, Promises and Practices, Thomas Scanlon advances a theory of promising developed out of both of these positions. This article argues that Scanlon 's argument fails because it cannot avoid the incommensurability of the expectation and reliance principles
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Oliver Black (2004). Agreements, Undertakings, and Practical Reason. Legal Theory 10 (2):77-95.
Scott R. Paeth (2013). The Responsibility to Lie and the Obligation to Report. Journal of Business Ethics 112 (4):559-566.
Similar books and articles
David Owens (2007). Duress, Deception, and the Validity of a Promise. Mind 116 (462):293-315.
H. M. Malm (1989). Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum. Hypatia 4 (3):128-135.
Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne (2010). The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments. Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
H. E. Baber (1987). How Bad Is Rape? Hypatia 2 (2):125-138.
P. X. Monaghan (2010). A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms. Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
J. L. Schellenberg (2005). The Hiddenness Argument Revisited. Religious Studies 41 (3):287-303.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads41 ( #88,425 of 1,781,386 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #167,920 of 1,781,386 )
How can I increase my downloads?