Hypothetical consent and moral force |
| |
Authors: | Daniel Brudney |
| |
Institution: | (1) Dept. of Philosophy, University of Chicago, U.S.A. |
| |
Abstract: | This article starts by examining the appeal to hypothetical consent as used by law and economics writers. I argue that their use of this kind of argument has no moral force whatever. I then briefly examine, through some remarks on Rawls and Scanlon, the conditions under which such an argument would have moral force. Finally, I bring these considerations to bear to criticize the argument of judge Frank Easterbrook's majority opinion in Flamm v. Eberstadt. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|