12 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
John Oberdiek [11]John F. K. Oberdiek [1]
See also:
Profile: John Oberdiek (Rutgers University)
  1. Kimberly Kessler Ferzan & John F. K. Oberdiek (2013). Introductions. Law and Philosophy 32 (1):1-1.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. John Oberdiek (2012). The Moral Significance of Risking. Legal Theory 1 (1):1-18.
    What makes careless conduct careless is easily one of the deepest and most contested questions in negligence law, tort theory, and moral theory. Answering it involves determining the conditions that make the imposition of risk unjustifiable, wrong, or impermissible. Yet there is a still deeper as well as overlooked and undertheorized question: Why does subjecting others to risk of harm call for justification in the first place? That risk can be impermissibly imposed upon otherspresupposes that imposing risk is the kind (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. John Oberdiek (2010). Specifying Constitutional Rights. Constitutional Commentary 271 (1).
  4. Aileen Kavanagh & John Oberdiek (eds.) (2009). Arguing About Law. Routledge.
    Arguing about Law introduces philosophy of law in an accessible and engaging way. The reader covers a wide range of topics, from general jurisprudence, law, the state and the individual, to topics in normative legal theory, as well as the theoretical foundations of public and private law. In addition to including many classics, Arguing About Law also includes both non-traditional selections and discussion of timely topical issues like the legal dimension of the war on terror. The editors provide lucid introductions (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. John Oberdiek (2009). Towards a Right Against Risking. Law and Philosophy 28 (4):367 - 392.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. John Oberdiek (2008). Culpability and the Definition of Deontological Constraints. Law and Philosophy 27 (2):105 - 122.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. John Oberdiek (2008). Philosophical Issues in Tort Law. Philosophy Compass 3 (4):734-748.
    The union of contemporary philosophy and tort law has never been better. Perhaps the most dynamic current in contemporary tort theory concerns the increasingly sophisticated inquires into the doctrinal elements of the law of torts, with the tort of negligence in particular garnering the most attention from theorists. In this article, I examine philosophically rich issues revolving around each of the elements constituting the tort of negligence: compensable injury, duty, breach, actual cause, and proximate cause.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. John Oberdiek (2008). Specifying Rights Out of Necessity. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 28 (1):19.
    It is the purpose of this article to make the positive case for an under-appreciated conception of rights: specified rights. In contrast to rights conceived generally, a specified right can stand against different behaviour in different circumstances, so that what conflicts with a right in one context may not conflict with it in another. The specified conception of rights thus combines into a single inquiry the two questions that must be answered in invoking the general conception of rights, identifying the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. John Oberdiek (2008). What's Wrong with Infringements (Insofar as Infringements Are Not Wrong): A Reply. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 27 (3):293 - 307.
    An earlier article of mine, 'Lost in Moral Space: On the Infringing/Violating Distinction and its Place in the Theory of Rights', was devoted to rebutting Judith Jarvis Thomson's arguments in favor of incorporating the distinction between (permissibly) infringing and (impermissibly) violating a right. In 'A Defence of Infringement', Andrew Botterell maintains that my criticisms and attempted rebuttals of Thomson's position fail, and that despite my efforts to show otherwise, the category of right infringements is secure. In this reply, I explain (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. John Oberdiek & Dennis Patterson (2007). Moral Evaluation and Conceptual Analysis in Jurisprudential Methodology. In Michael D. A. Freeman & Ross Harrison (eds.), Law and Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
  11. John Oberdiek (2004). Lost in Moral Space: On the Infringing/Violating Distinction and its Place in the Theory of Rights. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 23 (4):325 - 346.
    The infringing/violating distinction, first drawn by Judith Jarvis Thomson, is central to much contemporary rights theory. According to Thomson, conduct that is in some sense opposed to a right infringes it, while conduct that is also wrong violates the right. This distinction finds a home what I call, borrowing Robert Nozick's parlance, a "moral space" conception of rights, for the infringing/violating distinction presupposes that, as Nozick puts it, "a line (or hyper-plane) circumscribes an area in moral space around an individual." (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. John Oberdiek (2001). Reasons, Motivation, and Sexism. American Journal of Bioethics 1 (1):38 – 39.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation