16 found
Sort by:
  1. Daniel Attas, Charles Beitz, Jeffrey Brand-Ballard, Kimberley Brownlee, Sharon Byrd, Michael Cahill, Edward Cheng, Vincent Chiao, John Christman & Sean Coyle (2013). Please Join Us in Thanking All of Those Experts in Law and Philosophy for Devoting Time and Effort to Review the Papers We Have Sent Them. The Editor and Publisher Acknowledge the Colleagues Listed Below for Their Excellent Reviews of Papers for Which Final Decisions Have Been Made in 2013. Law and Philosophy 32:823-824.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Arash Abizadeh, Brooke Ackerly, Andrew Altman, Scott A. Anderson, Daniel Attas, Michael Bacon, Marcia Baron, Mark Bernstein, Benjamin Bradley & Nicholas Buccola (2009). Recognition of Reviewers. Journal of Social Philosophy 40 (4):457-460.
  3. Daniel Attas (2009). A Trans-Generational Difference Principle. In Axel Gosseries & Lukas H. Meyer (eds.), Intergenerational Justice. Oup Oxford.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Daniel Attas (2009). Future People. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (1):127-132.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Daniel Attas (2009). 1. The Mutuality Problem. In Gosseries Axel & Meyers L. (eds.), Intergenerational Justice. Oxford University Press. 189.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Daniel Attas (2008). Lockean Justifications of Intellectual Property. In Gosseries Axel, Marciano A. & Strowel A. (eds.), Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice. Basingstoke & N.Y.: Palgrave Mcmillan. 29--56.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Daniel Attas (2008). The Difference Principle and Time. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (2):209-232.
    Rawls's difference principle contains a certain normative ambiguity, so that opposing views, including strong inegalitarian ones, might find a home under it. The element that introduces this indeterminacy is the absence of an explicit reference to time . Thus, a society that agrees on the difference principle as the proper justification of basic political-economic institutions, might nevertheless disagree on whether their specific institutions are justified by that principle. Such disagreement would most often centre on issues of fact: will a more (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Daniel Attas (2006). Fragmenting Property. Law and Philosophy 25 (1):119-149.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Daniel Attas & David Heyd (eds.) (2006). Moreh Tsedeḳ: ʻiyunim Be-Torato Shel G'on Rols. Hotsaʼat Sefarim ʻa. Sh. Y.L. Magnes, Ha- Universiṭah Ha-ʻivrit.
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Daniel Attas & Fragmenting Property (2006). Bebhinn Donnelly/the Epistemic Connection Between Nature and Value in New and Traditional Natural Law Theory 1–29 Re'em Segev/Justification, Rationality and Mistake: Mistake of Law is No Excuse? It Might Be a Justification! 31–79. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 25:673-674.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Daniel Attas (2004). Who Owns the Product? Philosophical Quarterly 54 (217):537 - 556.
    If persons fully own themselves and can acquire, by unilateral acts, unconditional full property rights to previously unowned natural resources, then by these same principles of property they also own the products of their property and of their labour. But (a) the principles of property are silent on the question of the division of joint products; (b) the market is a form of co-operation in production which makes the total social product a joint product. In the circumstances of an unrestrained (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Daniel Attas & Avner de-Shalit (2004). Workfare: The Subjection of Labour. Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (3):309-320.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Daniel Attas (2003). The Negative Principle of Just Appropriation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 33 (3):343 - 372.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Daniel Attas (2000). Freedom and Self–Ownership. Social Theory and Practice 26 (1):1-23.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Daniel Attas (2000). The Case of Guest Workers: Exploitation, Citizenship and Economic Rights. Res Publica 6 (1):73--92.
    Working from a ``capitalist'''' theory of exploitation, based on a neo-classical account of economic value, I argue that guest workers are exploited. It may be objected, however, that since they are not citizens, any inequality that stems from their status as non-citizens is morally unobjectionable. Although host countries are under no moral obligation to admit guest workers as citizens, thereare independent reasons that call for the extension of economicrights – the freedom of occupation in particular – to guestworkers. Since the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Daniel Attas (1999). What's Wrong with "Deceptive" Advertising? Journal of Business Ethics 21 (1):49 - 59.
    In this paper I present a moral account of the legal notion of deceptive advertising. I argue that no harmful consequences to the consumer need follow from a deceptive advertisement as such, and I suggest instead that one should focus on the consequences of permitting the practise of deceptive advertising on society as a whole. After a brief account of deceptive advertising, I move to discuss the role of the reasonable person standard in its definition. One interpretation of this standard (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation