This book examines responsibility and luck as these issues arise in tort law, criminal law, and distributive justice. In revealing how the problems that arise in tort and criminal law as well as distributive justice invite structurally parallel solutions, the author also shows the deep connection between individual responsibility and social equality. This is a challenging and provocative book that will be of special interest to moral and political philosophers, legal theorists, and political scientists.

Do citizens have an obligation to obey the law? This book differs from standard approaches by shifting from the language of obedience (orders) to that of deference (normative judgments). Though the focus is on political obligation, Philip Soper approaches that issue indirectly by developing a more general account of when deference is due to the views of others. The book defends a more general theory of ethics; one whose scope extends beyond the question of political obligation to questions of duty in the case of law, promises, fair play and friendship.

This book focuses on the degree to which certain moral and legal doctrines are rooted in specific passions that are then institutionalized in the form of criminal law. A philosophical analysis is developed of the following questions: When, if ever, should hatred be overcome by sympathy or compassion? What are forgiveness and mercy and to what degree do they require--both conceptually and morally--the overcoming of certain passions and the motivation by other passions? If forgiveness and mercy indeed are moral virtues, what role, if any, should they play in the law?

This book offers an original theory of adjudication focused on the ethics of judging in courts of law. It offers two main theses. The good faith thesis defends the possibility of lawful judicial decisions even when judges have discretion. The permissible discretion thesis defends the compatibility of judicial discretion and legal indeterminacy with the legitimacy of adjudication in a constitutional democracy. Together, these two theses oppose both conservative theories that would restrict the scope of adjudication unduly and leftist critical theories that would liberate judges from the rule...

This book is the first interdisciplinary study of the fundamental normative issues underpinning immigration policy. A distinguished group of economists, political scientists, and philosophers offer a stimulating and provocative discussion of this complex topic. Among the issues addressed are the proper role of the state in supporting a particular culture, the possible destabilization of the political and social life of a country through immigration and the size and distribution of economic losses and gains.

Do individuals have a positive right of self-defense? And if so, what are the limits of this right? Under what conditions, if any, does this use of force extend to the defense of others? These are some of the issues explored by Dr. Uniacke in this comprehensive philosophical discussion of the principles relevant to self-defense as a moral and legal justification for homicide. This is a lucid and sophisticated account of the complex notion of justification, revolving around a critical discussion of recent trends in the law of self-defense.

Steven Hetcher argues that the traditional conception of norms as rule-like linguistic entities is erroneous. Instead, norms must be understood as patterns of rationally governed behavior maintained in groups by acts of conformity. Using informal game theory in the analysis of norms and customs, Hetcher applies his theory of norms to tort law and Internet privacy laws. This book will appeal to students and professionals in law, philosophy, and political and social theory.

This book offers an original theory of adjudication focused on the ethics of judging in courts of law. It offers two main theses. The good faith thesis defends the possibility of lawful judicial decisions even when judges have discretion. The permissible discretion thesis defends the compatibility of judicial discretion and legal indeterminacy with the legitimacy of adjudication in a constitutional democracy. Together, these two theses oppose both conservative theories that would restrict the scope of adjudication unduly and leftist critical theories that would liberate judges from the rule...

Timothy Macklem argues that the heart of discrimination lies not in unfavorable comparisons with the treatment and opportunities that men enjoy, but rather, in a denial of resources and opportunities that women need to lead successful and meaningful lives. This work promises to be a milestone in the debate about gender equality and will interest students and professionals concerned with legal theory and gender studies.

When does a woman give valid consent to sexual relations? When does her consent render it morally or legally permissible for a man to have sexual relations with her? These are two of the questions discussed in this important book, which will appeal to a wide readership in philosophy, law, and the social sciences. Alan Wertheimer considers a wide variety of situations involving coercion, fraud, retardation, and intoxication.