David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
OUP USA (2010)
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||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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Eyal Zamir & Barak Medina, Law, Economics, and Morality: Constrained Economic Analysis of the Fight Against Terrorism.
Russell 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):1-17.
Robert Alexy (2002). The Argument From Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.
Juan Javier Granaddelo & M. C. Mirow, The Future of the Economic Analysis of Law in Latin America: A Proposal for Alacde Model Law and Economics Civil and Commercial Codes.
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.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-01-31
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?