Tort Law and Contractualism

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Law and Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-04-20 DOI:10.1007/s10982-024-09498-0
Peter Chau
{"title":"Tort Law and Contractualism","authors":"Peter Chau","doi":"10.1007/s10982-024-09498-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>How can tort law be justified? There are well-known difficulties with the three traditional theories of tort law dominating the literature (namely, economic theory, corrective justice theory, and civil recourse theory). Recently, some have turned to moral contractualism in search of tort law’s foundation. One of the most prominent attempts was made by Gregory Keating. Keating’s account, however, has been subjected to powerful objections. In a recent paper, John Oberdiek, through a sympathetic critique of Keating’s account, develops a new version of contractualist tort theory that is alleged to be at once superior to the three traditional theories of tort law and immune to the objections to Keating’s account. The aim of my paper is to critically assess Oberdiek’s account; I will argue that, while Oberdiek’s account does improve upon Keating’s in some important respects, it is ultimately unsatisfactory.</p>","PeriodicalId":51702,"journal":{"name":"Law and Philosophy","volume":"129 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","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/s10982-024-09498-0","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

How can tort law be justified? There are well-known difficulties with the three traditional theories of tort law dominating the literature (namely, economic theory, corrective justice theory, and civil recourse theory). Recently, some have turned to moral contractualism in search of tort law’s foundation. One of the most prominent attempts was made by Gregory Keating. Keating’s account, however, has been subjected to powerful objections. In a recent paper, John Oberdiek, through a sympathetic critique of Keating’s account, develops a new version of contractualist tort theory that is alleged to be at once superior to the three traditional theories of tort law and immune to the objections to Keating’s account. The aim of my paper is to critically assess Oberdiek’s account; I will argue that, while Oberdiek’s account does improve upon Keating’s in some important respects, it is ultimately unsatisfactory.

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
侵权法和契约主义
如何证明侵权法的合理性?众所周知,侵权法的三大传统理论(即经济理论、矫正正义理论和民事追索权理论)在文献中占据主导地位。最近,一些人转向道德契约论,以寻求侵权法的基础。格雷戈里-基廷(Gregory Keating)的尝试最为突出。然而,基廷的观点遭到了强烈的反对。在最近的一篇论文中,约翰-奥伯迪克(John Oberdiek)通过对基廷的论述进行同情的批判,提出了一种新版本的契约主义侵权理论,据称这种理论既优于侵权法的三种传统理论,又能抵御对基廷论述的反对。我的论文旨在对奥伯狄克的论述进行批判性评估;我将论证,尽管奥伯狄克的论述在某些重要方面确实改进了基廷的论述,但它最终还是不能令人满意。
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