Law, Economics, and Morality
OUP USA (2010)
| Abstract | Law, Economics, and Morality examines the possibility of combining economic methodology and deontological morality through explicit and direct incorporation of moral constraints into economic models. Economic analysis of law is a powerful analytical methodology. However, as a purely consequentialist approach, which determines the desirability of acts and rules solely by assessing the goodness of their outcomes, standard cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is normatively objectionable. Moderate deontology prioritizes such values as autonomy, basic liberties, truth-telling, and promise-keeping over the promotion of good outcomes. It holds that there are constraints on promoting the good. Such constraints may be overridden only if enough good (or bad) is at stake. While moderate deontology conforms to prevailing moral intuitions and legal doctrines, it is arguably lacking in methodological rigor and precision. Eyal Zamir and Barak Medina argue that the normative flaws of economic analysis can be rectified without relinquishing its methodological advantages and that moral constraints can be formalized so as to make their analysis more rigorous. They discuss various substantive and methodological choices involved in modeling deontological constraints. Zamir and Medina propose to determine the permissibility of any act or rule infringing a deontological constraint by means of mathematical threshold functions. Law, Economics, and Morality presents the general structure of threshold functions, analyzes their elements and addresses possible objections to this proposal. It then illustrates the implementation of constrained CBA in several legal fields, including contract law, freedom of speech, antidiscrimination law, the fight against terrorism, and legal paternalism. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| ISBN(s) | 9780195372168 | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRussell Hardin (1992). The Morality of Law and Economics. Law and Philosophy 11 (4):331 - 384.
Neil MacCormick (2007). Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory. Oxford University Press.
John Arthur & William H. Shaw (eds.) (2010). Readings in the Philosophy of Law. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Joseph Raz (2004). Incorporation by Law. Legal Theory 10:1-17.
Robert Alexy (2002). The Argument From Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.
Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker, A Legal Theory Without Law - Posner V. Hayek on Economic Analysis of Law.
Herlinde Pauer-Studer (2012). Law and Morality Under Evil Conditions. The SS Judge Konrd Morgen. Jurisprudence 3 (2):367-390.
Baudouin Dupret (2011). Adjudication in Action: An Ethnomethodology of Law, Morality and Justice. Ashgate.
Giorgio Bongiovanni, Antonino Rotolo, Corrado Roversi & Chiara Valentini (2009). The Structure of Social Practices and the Connection Between Law and Morality. Ratio Juris 22 (1):1-23.
Matthew H. Kramer (2008). Where Law and Morality Meet. Oxford University Press.
G. Pino (1999). The Place of Legal Positivism in Contemporary Constitutional States. Law and Philosophy 18 (5):513-536.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2012-01-31Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
