The morality of law and economics

The moral heart of normative law and economics is efficiency, especially dynamic efficiency that takes incentive effects into account. In the economic theory, justificatory argument is inherently at the institutional- or rule-level, not an the individual- or case-level. InMarkets, Morals, and the Law Jules Coleman argues against the efficiency theory on normative grounds. Although he strongly asserts the need to view law institutionally, he frequently grounds his criticisms of law and economics in arguments from little more than direct moral intuition about individual cases. He evidently holds that consent provides a better normative basis for law than does efficiency and he uses consent arguments to attack recommendations from scholars in law and economics. His own chief contribution, however, is to law and economics rather than to any alternative theory.     

The relationship between law and morality

Law and morality can be considered as two competing groups among varied and sophisticated social phenomena. Both law and morality serve as norms of human behavior and fall in the category of values for maintaining social welfare. The study was based mainly on a review of the relevant literature and the compiling of available information on law and morality. This paper argues that law and morality are closely related yet distinct.     

Tales of law and morality

B.A. (hons.), Acadia University 1982; B.A. (juris.), Oxford University 1984; LL.B., Dalhousie University 1985; B.C.L., Oxford University 1986; M.A., Oxford University 1991.     

Prostitution,criminal law and morality in the Netherlands

In 1911 a new public morality act was enacted in the Netherlands. Article 250bis of the penal code states that it is forbidden to give opportunity for prostitution. This so called article on brothelkeeping was the result of growing pressure of a coalition between christian puritans, socialists and feminists at the end of the nineteenth century. In the nineteeneighties the government has proposed to scratch this general prohibition of brothelkeeping. This proposal results from another coalition, this time between feminists and bureaucratic powers. This change in the public debate on prostitution, and especially the influence of feminism, is analysed from a moral point of view. The Dutch prostitution issue is seen as a case of postmodern morality, that is to say as a result of bureaucratic needs for regulation and subjective experiences of the persons involved.     

论江泽民依法治国和以德治国思想

江泽民同志继承和发展了毛泽东、邓小平加强社会主义民主和法制建设的治国思想,提出了在建设有中国特色的社会主义,发展社会主义市场经济的过程中,要坚持不懈地加强社会主义法制建设,依法治国,同时也要坚持不懈地加强社会主义道德建设,以德治国。这是江泽民同志对毛泽东、邓小平法制思想的新发展,是对马克思主义国家学说的丰富和贡献。     

税收法治的现实差距与对策

改革开放以来,我国的税收法治建设有了很大的进步。由于税收主体观念错误、税法体系不完善、税收执法不严等主要因素存在,与税收法治的目标有很大差距。文章从完善立法、加强执法和法律监督等几方面提出了具体的对策,以推进我国税收法治建设。     

The gap between law student career aspirations and employment opportunities

Most law students in the UK embark upon their degrees hoping to become solicitors or barristers and yet the current legal landscape is in a state of flux. Students are incurring significant costs to try and break into an increasingly competitive market and are concerned that they do not have the skills and experience that many employers expect. With this in mind, Plymouth Law School tracked the aspirations and destinations of its LLB students and graduates over a number of years, exploring factors that encouraged or inhibited them along the path to their careers. This article evaluates the data from our students and considers its relevance to the employability issues highlighted by the LETR.     

Excuses in law and in morality: a response to Marcia Baron

In this analysis of Marcia Baron’s account of excuses, I seek to do two things. I try to draw out the nature of the distinction between forgiving and excusing. I also defend the distinction between excuses (like duress), and denials of responsibility (like insanity).

Patent first, ask questions later: morality and biotechnology in patent law

This Article explores the U.S. "patent first, ask questions later" approach to determining what subject matter should receive patent protection. Under this approach, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or the Agency) issues patents on "anything under the sun made by man," and to the extent a patent's subject matter is sufficiently controversial, Congress acts retrospectively in assessing whether patents should issue on such interventions. This practice has important ramifications for morally controversial biotechnology patents specifically, and for American society generally. For many years a judicially created "moral utility" doctrine served as a type of gatekeeper of patent subject matter eligibility. The doctrine allowed both the USTPO and courts to deny patents on morally controversial subject matter under the fiction that such inventions were not "useful." The gate, however, is currently untended. A combination of the demise of the moral utility doctrine, along with expansive judicial interpretations of the scope of patent-eligible subject matter, has resulted in virtually no basis on which the USTPO or courts can deny patent protection to morally controversial, but otherwise patentable, subject matter. This is so despite position statements by the Agency to the contrary. Biotechnology is an area in which many morally controversial inventions are generated. Congress has been in react-mode following the issuance of a stream of morally controversial biotech patents, including patents on transgenic animals, surgical methods, and methods of cloning humans. With no statutory limits on patent eligibility, and with myriad concerns complicating congressional action following a patent's issuance, it is not Congress, the representative of the people, determining patent eligibility. Instead, it is patent applicants, scientific inventors, who are deciding matters of high public policy through the contents of the applications they file with the USTPO. This Article explores how the United States has come to be in this position, exposes latent problems with the "patent first" approach, and considers the benefits and disadvantages of the "ask questions first, patents later" approaches employed by some other countries. The Article concludes that granting patents on morally controversial biotech subject matter and then asking whether such inventions should be patentable is bad policy for the United States and its patent system, and posits workable, proactive ways for Congress to successfully guard the patent-eligibility gate.