Dissent-Sensitive Permissions

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Law and Philosophy Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1007/s10982-021-09428-4
Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler
{"title":"Dissent-Sensitive Permissions","authors":"Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler","doi":"10.1007/s10982-021-09428-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>What makes it permissible to reach out to hold someone’s hand on a first date, or to rub a friend’s back when she is crying? This paper, a contribution to the special issue on Doug Husak, argues that conventions, context, and relationships play a role in shifting normative boundaries, such that the default rule becomes that it is permissible to touch someone until she dissents (thereby creating a ‘dissent-sensitive permission’). Part I of this paper focuses on convention-type cases, contrasting dates with the intentional touchings that occur on crowded streets or while playing football. Part II then addresses the range of normative justifications that track these different cases. Part III adds a different way that dissent-sensitive permissions can arise—from relationships and common ground. Part IV unearths the underlying rights-structure that my view presupposes and returns to the question of whether the theory I have on offer is one of consent. Part V argues that this approach, that these are alterations of permissibility, is superior to the view that conventions only impact the actor’s blameworthiness by rendering his belief reasonable. Part VI raises questions of whether our understanding of consent dictates our understanding of dissent.</p>","PeriodicalId":51702,"journal":{"name":"Law and Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-021-09428-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What makes it permissible to reach out to hold someone’s hand on a first date, or to rub a friend’s back when she is crying? This paper, a contribution to the special issue on Doug Husak, argues that conventions, context, and relationships play a role in shifting normative boundaries, such that the default rule becomes that it is permissible to touch someone until she dissents (thereby creating a ‘dissent-sensitive permission’). Part I of this paper focuses on convention-type cases, contrasting dates with the intentional touchings that occur on crowded streets or while playing football. Part II then addresses the range of normative justifications that track these different cases. Part III adds a different way that dissent-sensitive permissions can arise—from relationships and common ground. Part IV unearths the underlying rights-structure that my view presupposes and returns to the question of whether the theory I have on offer is one of consent. Part V argues that this approach, that these are alterations of permissibility, is superior to the view that conventions only impact the actor’s blameworthiness by rendering his belief reasonable. Part VI raises questions of whether our understanding of consent dictates our understanding of dissent.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dissent-Sensitive权限
是什么让你在第一次约会时伸出手握住某人的手,或者在朋友哭泣时抚摸她的背?这篇论文是Doug Husak特刊的一篇文章,它认为惯例、背景和关系在改变规范界限方面发挥了作用,这样默认规则就变成了允许触摸某人,直到她不同意(从而创造了“异议敏感许可”)。本文的第一部分侧重于常规类型的案例,将日期与发生在拥挤的街道或踢足球时的故意触摸进行对比。然后,第二部分讨论了跟踪这些不同案例的规范性论证的范围。第三部分添加了一种不同的方式,可以产生对不同意见敏感的权限——来自关系和共同点。第四部分揭示了我的观点所预设的基本权利结构,并回到了我所提供的理论是否是一种同意的问题。第五部分认为,这种方法,这些是可容许性的改变,优于惯例只通过使行为者的信念变得合理来影响行为者的可责备性的观点。第六部分提出的问题是我们对同意的理解是否决定了我们对异议的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Philosophy
Law and Philosophy Multiple-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Law and Philosophy is a forum for the publication of work in law and philosophy which is of common interest to members of the two disciplines of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. It is open to all approaches in both fields and to work in any of the major legal traditions - common law, civil law, or the socialist tradition. The editors of Law and Philosophy encourage papers which exhibit philosophical reflection on the law informed by a knowledge of the law, and legal analysis informed by philosophical methods and principles.
期刊最新文献
Climate Refugees and the Limits of Reparative Obligations to Offer Asylum The conceptual structure of perjury Arbitrary Power: Caricature and Concept Moves & Rules: Addressing the Puzzle of Social Rule-Following Recourse, Litigation, and the Rule of Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1