George Klosko
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- April 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199256204
- eISBN:
- 9780191602351
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199256209.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Provides a full defence of a theory of political obligation on the basis of the principle of fairness (or fair play). The book responds to the most important objections and extends a theory-based on ...
More
Provides a full defence of a theory of political obligation on the basis of the principle of fairness (or fair play). The book responds to the most important objections and extends a theory-based on fairness into a developed ‘multiple principle’ theory of obligation. The ‘self-image of the state’ in regard to political obligations is explored through examination of judicial decisions in three different democratic countries, while the book also breaks new ground by studying attitudes towards political obligations, through the use of small focus groups.Less
Provides a full defence of a theory of political obligation on the basis of the principle of fairness (or fair play). The book responds to the most important objections and extends a theory-based on fairness into a developed ‘multiple principle’ theory of obligation. The ‘self-image of the state’ in regard to political obligations is explored through examination of judicial decisions in three different democratic countries, while the book also breaks new ground by studying attitudes towards political obligations, through the use of small focus groups.
Matthew Clayton
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199268948
- eISBN:
- 9780191603693
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199268940.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter offers an account of political or citizenship education. It argues that a central feature of citizenship education in a liberal society is the development of a sense of justice, and the ...
More
This chapter offers an account of political or citizenship education. It argues that a central feature of citizenship education in a liberal society is the development of a sense of justice, and the virtues of civility and reciprocity that are constitutive of that sense. The discussion begins with the analysis of Brighouse’s consent-based objections to the shaping of political motivations. An alternative political motivation model is defended, which draws on Rawls’s account of the natural duty of justice. The aims of political education, with respect to the skills, attitudes and values of liberal citizens, are briefly discussed. Education for justice rejects the view that political education should seek to cultivate a sense of nationality. The aims of political education in the context of questions about global justice are considered. Certain educational issues that arise in the non-ideal world from the point of view of developing a sense of justice are addressed.Less
This chapter offers an account of political or citizenship education. It argues that a central feature of citizenship education in a liberal society is the development of a sense of justice, and the virtues of civility and reciprocity that are constitutive of that sense. The discussion begins with the analysis of Brighouse’s consent-based objections to the shaping of political motivations. An alternative political motivation model is defended, which draws on Rawls’s account of the natural duty of justice. The aims of political education, with respect to the skills, attitudes and values of liberal citizens, are briefly discussed. Education for justice rejects the view that political education should seek to cultivate a sense of nationality. The aims of political education in the context of questions about global justice are considered. Certain educational issues that arise in the non-ideal world from the point of view of developing a sense of justice are addressed.
Monique Deveaux
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199289790
- eISBN:
- 9780191711022
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199289790.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
This chapter considers how human rights perspectives understand the gender/culture tension and the kinds of normative and practical solutions that they offer. In addition to discussing writing by ...
More
This chapter considers how human rights perspectives understand the gender/culture tension and the kinds of normative and practical solutions that they offer. In addition to discussing writing by feminist human rights scholars, it considers the work of philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who focuses on women’s capabilities for well-being, as well as the work of philosopher Onora O’Neill, who argues that we need to attend to the circumstances and capacities that women need if they are to genuinely give their consent to cultural practices and arrangements.Less
This chapter considers how human rights perspectives understand the gender/culture tension and the kinds of normative and practical solutions that they offer. In addition to discussing writing by feminist human rights scholars, it considers the work of philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who focuses on women’s capabilities for well-being, as well as the work of philosopher Onora O’Neill, who argues that we need to attend to the circumstances and capacities that women need if they are to genuinely give their consent to cultural practices and arrangements.
Alan Wertheimer
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199743513
- eISBN:
- 9780199827145
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199743513.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy
Clinical research requires that some people be used and possibly harmed for the benefit of others. What justifies such use of people? This book provides an in-depth philosophical analysis of several ...
More
Clinical research requires that some people be used and possibly harmed for the benefit of others. What justifies such use of people? This book provides an in-depth philosophical analysis of several crucial issues in the ethics of clinical research. Much writing on the ethics of research with human subjects assumes that participation in research is a distinctive activity that requires distinctive moral principles. In most contexts, we allow people to choose the activities in which they engage. By contrast, people are permitted to participate in research only after IRBs determine that it is appropriate for them to do so. Although we assume that consent to participate in research must be preceded by an elaborate disclosure of information, we make no such assumption in many other areas of life. Although it is thought to be morally problematic to provide financial inducements to prospective subjects, we make no such assumptions when we hire people as loggers, fishermen, and fire fighters. Although we readily accept the “off-shoring” of manufacturing, many regard the off-shoring of medical research with great skepticism. This book seeks to widen the lens through which we consider such issues. When we do so, we will find that many standard principles of research ethics are difficult to defend.Less
Clinical research requires that some people be used and possibly harmed for the benefit of others. What justifies such use of people? This book provides an in-depth philosophical analysis of several crucial issues in the ethics of clinical research. Much writing on the ethics of research with human subjects assumes that participation in research is a distinctive activity that requires distinctive moral principles. In most contexts, we allow people to choose the activities in which they engage. By contrast, people are permitted to participate in research only after IRBs determine that it is appropriate for them to do so. Although we assume that consent to participate in research must be preceded by an elaborate disclosure of information, we make no such assumption in many other areas of life. Although it is thought to be morally problematic to provide financial inducements to prospective subjects, we make no such assumptions when we hire people as loggers, fishermen, and fire fighters. Although we readily accept the “off-shoring” of manufacturing, many regard the off-shoring of medical research with great skepticism. This book seeks to widen the lens through which we consider such issues. When we do so, we will find that many standard principles of research ethics are difficult to defend.
George Klosko
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- April 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199256204
- eISBN:
- 9780191602351
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199256209.003.0006
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
With theories of political obligation based on consent now generally discredited because most people have not actually consented, certain theorists attempt to rescue consent by proposing mechanisms ...
More
With theories of political obligation based on consent now generally discredited because most people have not actually consented, certain theorists attempt to rescue consent by proposing mechanisms through which individuals could consent to government. Various mechanisms are examined, including ‘consent-or-leave’ and Michael Walzer's proposal that citizens who refuse to consent be allowed a lesser status, analogous to that of ‘resident aliens at home’. All these mechanisms confront insuperable difficulties concerning essential public goods. Because resident aliens at home will continue to receive public goods, the alternatives are that they be allowed to receive them cost-free or that they incur obligations, even though they explicitly refused to consent.Less
With theories of political obligation based on consent now generally discredited because most people have not actually consented, certain theorists attempt to rescue consent by proposing mechanisms through which individuals could consent to government. Various mechanisms are examined, including ‘consent-or-leave’ and Michael Walzer's proposal that citizens who refuse to consent be allowed a lesser status, analogous to that of ‘resident aliens at home’. All these mechanisms confront insuperable difficulties concerning essential public goods. Because resident aliens at home will continue to receive public goods, the alternatives are that they be allowed to receive them cost-free or that they incur obligations, even though they explicitly refused to consent.
Bernard Gert, Charles M. Culver, and K. Danner Clouser
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780195159066
- eISBN:
- 9780199786466
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195159063.003.0009
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
This chapter discusses what information doctors should be morally required to give to patients, and whether it should include the new kinds of information that doctors must know. Showing that the ...
More
This chapter discusses what information doctors should be morally required to give to patients, and whether it should include the new kinds of information that doctors must know. Showing that the task a patient must be competent to perform is that of making a rational decision clarifies the relationship between rationality and competence, and explains the inadequacy of all previous accounts of competence. The chapter also explains why what counts as coercion with regard to research volunteers is not the same as what counts as coercion with regard to patients.Less
This chapter discusses what information doctors should be morally required to give to patients, and whether it should include the new kinds of information that doctors must know. Showing that the task a patient must be competent to perform is that of making a rational decision clarifies the relationship between rationality and competence, and explains the inadequacy of all previous accounts of competence. The chapter also explains why what counts as coercion with regard to research volunteers is not the same as what counts as coercion with regard to patients.
Margaret Jane Radin
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780691155333
- eISBN:
- 9781400844838
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691155333.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Company and Commercial Law
Boilerplate—the fine-print terms and conditions that we become subject to when we click “I agree” online, rent an apartment, or enter an employment contract, for example—pervades all aspects of our ...
More
Boilerplate—the fine-print terms and conditions that we become subject to when we click “I agree” online, rent an apartment, or enter an employment contract, for example—pervades all aspects of our modern lives. On a daily basis, most of us accept boilerplate provisions without realizing that should a dispute arise about a purchased good or service, the nonnegotiable boilerplate terms can deprive us of our right to jury trial and relieve providers of responsibility for harm. Boilerplate is the first comprehensive treatment of the problems posed by the increasing use of these terms, demonstrating how their use has degraded traditional notions of consent, agreement, and contract, and sacrificed core rights whose loss threatens the democratic order. This book examines attempts to justify the use of boilerplate provisions by claiming either that recipients freely consent to them or that economic efficiency demands them, and it finds these justifications wanting. It argues that our courts, legislatures, and regulatory agencies have fallen short in their evaluation and oversight of the use of boilerplate clauses. To improve legal evaluation of boilerplate, the book offers a new analytical framework, one that takes into account the nature of the rights affected, the quality of the recipient's consent, and the extent of the use of these terms. It goes on to offer possibilities for new methods of boilerplate evaluation and control, and concludes by discussing positive steps that NGOs, legislators, regulators, courts, and scholars could take to bring about better practices.Less
Boilerplate—the fine-print terms and conditions that we become subject to when we click “I agree” online, rent an apartment, or enter an employment contract, for example—pervades all aspects of our modern lives. On a daily basis, most of us accept boilerplate provisions without realizing that should a dispute arise about a purchased good or service, the nonnegotiable boilerplate terms can deprive us of our right to jury trial and relieve providers of responsibility for harm. Boilerplate is the first comprehensive treatment of the problems posed by the increasing use of these terms, demonstrating how their use has degraded traditional notions of consent, agreement, and contract, and sacrificed core rights whose loss threatens the democratic order. This book examines attempts to justify the use of boilerplate provisions by claiming either that recipients freely consent to them or that economic efficiency demands them, and it finds these justifications wanting. It argues that our courts, legislatures, and regulatory agencies have fallen short in their evaluation and oversight of the use of boilerplate clauses. To improve legal evaluation of boilerplate, the book offers a new analytical framework, one that takes into account the nature of the rights affected, the quality of the recipient's consent, and the extent of the use of these terms. It goes on to offer possibilities for new methods of boilerplate evaluation and control, and concludes by discussing positive steps that NGOs, legislators, regulators, courts, and scholars could take to bring about better practices.
Allen Buchanan
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780198295358
- eISBN:
- 9780191600982
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198295359.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Completes the second part of the book, and relies on the conception of political legitimacy delineated in Ch. 5 to advance a justice‐based, rather than a consent‐based, account of system legitimacy: ...
More
Completes the second part of the book, and relies on the conception of political legitimacy delineated in Ch. 5 to advance a justice‐based, rather than a consent‐based, account of system legitimacy: a set of criteria that the international legal system would have to meet in order to be legitimate. Building on groundwork already laid in Chs 1 and 5, it is shown why, contrary to the dominant view among international lawyers, the consent of states cannot confer legitimacy on the international legal system. In addition, it is argued that it is a mistake to assume that political equality among states is a necessary condition for system legitimacy, and that the international legal system, like any system for the exercise of political power, ought to be democratic. It is also shown that the idea of democratizing the international legal system is an ambiguous one and should not be equated with increasing state majoritarianism in the workings of the system; the charge that the international legal system has a “democratic deficit” is valid, but it is a mistake to assume that the remedy is to make the system conform more closely to the ideal of democracy as state majoritarianism. The eight sections of the chapter are: I. The Question of System Legitimacy; II. The Case for Having an International Legal System; III. A Justice‐Based Conception of System Legitimacy; IV. The Consent Theory of System Legitimacy; I. Moral Minimalism and the Consent Theory of System Legitimacy. VI. The Instrumental Argument for State Consent as a Necessary Condition for System Legitimacy; VII. Is Democracy a Necessary Condition of System Legitimacy?; and VIII. The Pursuit of Justice in an Imperfect System.Less
Completes the second part of the book, and relies on the conception of political legitimacy delineated in Ch. 5 to advance a justice‐based, rather than a consent‐based, account of system legitimacy: a set of criteria that the international legal system would have to meet in order to be legitimate. Building on groundwork already laid in Chs 1 and 5, it is shown why, contrary to the dominant view among international lawyers, the consent of states cannot confer legitimacy on the international legal system. In addition, it is argued that it is a mistake to assume that political equality among states is a necessary condition for system legitimacy, and that the international legal system, like any system for the exercise of political power, ought to be democratic. It is also shown that the idea of democratizing the international legal system is an ambiguous one and should not be equated with increasing state majoritarianism in the workings of the system; the charge that the international legal system has a “democratic deficit” is valid, but it is a mistake to assume that the remedy is to make the system conform more closely to the ideal of democracy as state majoritarianism. The eight sections of the chapter are: I. The Question of System Legitimacy; II. The Case for Having an International Legal System; III. A Justice‐Based Conception of System Legitimacy; IV. The Consent Theory of System Legitimacy; I. Moral Minimalism and the Consent Theory of System Legitimacy. VI. The Instrumental Argument for State Consent as a Necessary Condition for System Legitimacy; VII. Is Democracy a Necessary Condition of System Legitimacy?; and VIII. The Pursuit of Justice in an Imperfect System.
Jason Ralph
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199214310
- eISBN:
- 9780191706615
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199214310.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This chapter examines why legal positivism emphasises the importance of sovereign consent and relates it to the pluralist conception of international society introduced in the previous chapter. This ...
More
This chapter examines why legal positivism emphasises the importance of sovereign consent and relates it to the pluralist conception of international society introduced in the previous chapter. This is contrasted with a solidarist conception that identifies sources of law in processes that override the principle of sovereign consent. The chapter also examines the specific and contested role that peremptory norms play in the constitution of international society. Finally, it relates this debate to the contemporary critique of customary international law within American academia and within certain parts of the political and judicial branches of US government. It illustrates this with reference to the debate on the Alien Tort Claims Act and to documents claiming executive privilege in the war on terror.Less
This chapter examines why legal positivism emphasises the importance of sovereign consent and relates it to the pluralist conception of international society introduced in the previous chapter. This is contrasted with a solidarist conception that identifies sources of law in processes that override the principle of sovereign consent. The chapter also examines the specific and contested role that peremptory norms play in the constitution of international society. Finally, it relates this debate to the contemporary critique of customary international law within American academia and within certain parts of the political and judicial branches of US government. It illustrates this with reference to the debate on the Alien Tort Claims Act and to documents claiming executive privilege in the war on terror.
Jason Ralph
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199214310
- eISBN:
- 9780191706615
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199214310.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This chapter explains why the Clinton administration chose to sign, and the Bush administration chose to ‘unsign’ the Rome Treaty. Both argued that the Treaty violated the principle of sovereign ...
More
This chapter explains why the Clinton administration chose to sign, and the Bush administration chose to ‘unsign’ the Rome Treaty. Both argued that the Treaty violated the principle of sovereign consent and they both appealed to Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to support their argument. The chapter then asks why the US finds this argument so compelling when other democratic states are not threatened by the Court. The chapter offers an answer that goes beyond arguments that focus on America's national interests and its international responsibilities. Instead, it focuses on the cultural role that democratic consent plays in constituting America as a separate nation. The policy of opposing the ICC while offering alternative approaches to international criminal justice is, therefore, a representational practice designed to instantiate a particular image of America as well as a political move to protect the national interest.Less
This chapter explains why the Clinton administration chose to sign, and the Bush administration chose to ‘unsign’ the Rome Treaty. Both argued that the Treaty violated the principle of sovereign consent and they both appealed to Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to support their argument. The chapter then asks why the US finds this argument so compelling when other democratic states are not threatened by the Court. The chapter offers an answer that goes beyond arguments that focus on America's national interests and its international responsibilities. Instead, it focuses on the cultural role that democratic consent plays in constituting America as a separate nation. The policy of opposing the ICC while offering alternative approaches to international criminal justice is, therefore, a representational practice designed to instantiate a particular image of America as well as a political move to protect the national interest.
George Klosko
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- April 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199256204
- eISBN:
- 9780191602351
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199256209.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This and the following chapters explore the ‘self-image of the state’ in regard to political obligations through analysis of judicial decisions. Examining the reasons that states themselves provide ...
More
This and the following chapters explore the ‘self-image of the state’ in regard to political obligations through analysis of judicial decisions. Examining the reasons that states themselves provide to justify political obligations provides an empirical test of normative theories. Although judicial decisions have no claim to moral truth, the fact that justices regularly argue from certain principles rather than others adds to the plausibility of a theory based on the former and increases the burden of justification for proponents of other principles. Supreme Court justices usually defend their opinions on the basis of statutory or constitutional interpretation and seldom appeal directly to moral principles. However, on occasion they do invoke moral principles to support their opinions, especially in difficult cases. Justices of the US Supreme Court consistently ground obligations on protection that individuals receive from society. The most likely basis of these ‘reciprocal obligations’ is a principle of fairness, as expressed most notably in Arver v. U.S., the most important of the 'Selective Draft Law Cases'.Less
This and the following chapters explore the ‘self-image of the state’ in regard to political obligations through analysis of judicial decisions. Examining the reasons that states themselves provide to justify political obligations provides an empirical test of normative theories. Although judicial decisions have no claim to moral truth, the fact that justices regularly argue from certain principles rather than others adds to the plausibility of a theory based on the former and increases the burden of justification for proponents of other principles. Supreme Court justices usually defend their opinions on the basis of statutory or constitutional interpretation and seldom appeal directly to moral principles. However, on occasion they do invoke moral principles to support their opinions, especially in difficult cases. Justices of the US Supreme Court consistently ground obligations on protection that individuals receive from society. The most likely basis of these ‘reciprocal obligations’ is a principle of fairness, as expressed most notably in Arver v. U.S., the most important of the 'Selective Draft Law Cases'.
Jennifer M. Welsh
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199267217
- eISBN:
- 9780191601118
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199267219.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
Three main themes emerge from this edited collection. First, there has been an increased incidence of intervention for humanitarian purposes since the end of the Cold War. In these cases, the alleged ...
More
Three main themes emerge from this edited collection. First, there has been an increased incidence of intervention for humanitarian purposes since the end of the Cold War. In these cases, the alleged conflict between sovereignty and human rights has been addressed in one of two ways: through an evolution in the notion of sovereignty, from ‘sovereignty as authority’ to ‘sovereignty as responsibility’; and through an expanded definition of what constitutes a threat to international peace and security under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Second, despite this new climate of permissiveness, humanitarian intervention remains a controversial norm in international relations – largely because of continued opposition from certain members of international society, and concerns about its potentially negative consequences. Third, while the post Cold War period has seen some successful cases of intervention to address humanitarian catastrophes, the current capability of international organizations to undertake humanitarian interventions remains limited. Indeed, as the book demonstrates, the issue of humanitarian intervention has the potential to divide international institutions such as the UN and damage their credibility.Less
Three main themes emerge from this edited collection. First, there has been an increased incidence of intervention for humanitarian purposes since the end of the Cold War. In these cases, the alleged conflict between sovereignty and human rights has been addressed in one of two ways: through an evolution in the notion of sovereignty, from ‘sovereignty as authority’ to ‘sovereignty as responsibility’; and through an expanded definition of what constitutes a threat to international peace and security under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Second, despite this new climate of permissiveness, humanitarian intervention remains a controversial norm in international relations – largely because of continued opposition from certain members of international society, and concerns about its potentially negative consequences. Third, while the post Cold War period has seen some successful cases of intervention to address humanitarian catastrophes, the current capability of international organizations to undertake humanitarian interventions remains limited. Indeed, as the book demonstrates, the issue of humanitarian intervention has the potential to divide international institutions such as the UN and damage their credibility.
Margaret Jane Radin
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780691155333
- eISBN:
- 9781400844838
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691155333.003.0002
- Subject:
- Law, Company and Commercial Law
This chapter examines the normative degradation caused by the apparent lack of consent to boilerplate. It first considers the varieties of nonconsent to which consent is contrasted, including ...
More
This chapter examines the normative degradation caused by the apparent lack of consent to boilerplate. It first considers the varieties of nonconsent to which consent is contrasted, including coercion and its related conceptions of force and duress; fraud, with its allied notions of misrepresentation and deception; and sheer ignorance. It then discusses problematic consent, focusing on situations involving “information asymmetry” and heuristic biases. It also explores strategies of assimilating World B to consent, with particular emphasis on the devolution of voluntary agreement. The chapter shows that consent is problematic even when recipients click a box that says “I agree,” because it remains unclear what they could actually be agreeing to.Less
This chapter examines the normative degradation caused by the apparent lack of consent to boilerplate. It first considers the varieties of nonconsent to which consent is contrasted, including coercion and its related conceptions of force and duress; fraud, with its allied notions of misrepresentation and deception; and sheer ignorance. It then discusses problematic consent, focusing on situations involving “information asymmetry” and heuristic biases. It also explores strategies of assimilating World B to consent, with particular emphasis on the devolution of voluntary agreement. The chapter shows that consent is problematic even when recipients click a box that says “I agree,” because it remains unclear what they could actually be agreeing to.
Margaret Jane Radin
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780691155333
- eISBN:
- 9781400844838
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691155333.003.0009
- Subject:
- Law, Company and Commercial Law
This chapter proposes an analytical framework for improving the evaluation of boilerplate. It begins with a discussion of questions for evaluating boilerplate rights deletion schemes; for example, ...
More
This chapter proposes an analytical framework for improving the evaluation of boilerplate. It begins with a discussion of questions for evaluating boilerplate rights deletion schemes; for example, whether all of the rights granted and/or maintained by the state are appropriately considered default rules. It then describes three elements of analysis that can help illuminate how boilerplate waivers should be evaluated: the nature of the right in question and whether that right is alienable; the quality of consent by a recipient; and the extent of social dissemination of the rights deletion. It also examines the effect of nonconsent or market-inalienability on any purported contract, as well as the kinds of rights that are or should be subject to market-inalienability or partial market-inalienability in the presence of problematic consent. Finally, it explores political rights and interests, along with basic human rights and interests.Less
This chapter proposes an analytical framework for improving the evaluation of boilerplate. It begins with a discussion of questions for evaluating boilerplate rights deletion schemes; for example, whether all of the rights granted and/or maintained by the state are appropriately considered default rules. It then describes three elements of analysis that can help illuminate how boilerplate waivers should be evaluated: the nature of the right in question and whether that right is alienable; the quality of consent by a recipient; and the extent of social dissemination of the rights deletion. It also examines the effect of nonconsent or market-inalienability on any purported contract, as well as the kinds of rights that are or should be subject to market-inalienability or partial market-inalienability in the presence of problematic consent. Finally, it explores political rights and interests, along with basic human rights and interests.
Lainie Friedman Ross
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199273287
- eISBN:
- 9780191603655
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199273286.003.0006
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
This chapter presents an overview of the informed consent requirements and waivers in pediatric research under current federal regulations. These consent policies were adopted by the Food and Drug ...
More
This chapter presents an overview of the informed consent requirements and waivers in pediatric research under current federal regulations. These consent policies were adopted by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2001 with the exception of parental waivers under Code of Federal Regulations section 46.408. The moral bases for these requirements are examined: whether the current policies are consistent with these moral foundations, and if not, how the policies should be modified.Less
This chapter presents an overview of the informed consent requirements and waivers in pediatric research under current federal regulations. These consent policies were adopted by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2001 with the exception of parental waivers under Code of Federal Regulations section 46.408. The moral bases for these requirements are examined: whether the current policies are consistent with these moral foundations, and if not, how the policies should be modified.
Lainie Friedman Ross
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199273287
- eISBN:
- 9780191603655
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199273286.003.0008
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
Institutional review board (IRB) review is required for all federally funded research involving human subjects regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, or performed at an institution that ...
More
Institutional review board (IRB) review is required for all federally funded research involving human subjects regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, or performed at an institution that accepts federal funds. The requirement to document IRB review and the procurement of informed consent (IC) in published research reports is more recent. This chapter examines to what extent research published in three peer-reviewed pediatric journals documented IRB approval and IC, and to what extent the researchers who failed to document IRB and IC stated that they had obtained appropriate IRB review and consent from subjects. It was observed that a small but significant number of pediatric research protocols failed to obtain IRB approval or a waiver.Less
Institutional review board (IRB) review is required for all federally funded research involving human subjects regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, or performed at an institution that accepts federal funds. The requirement to document IRB review and the procurement of informed consent (IC) in published research reports is more recent. This chapter examines to what extent research published in three peer-reviewed pediatric journals documented IRB approval and IC, and to what extent the researchers who failed to document IRB and IC stated that they had obtained appropriate IRB review and consent from subjects. It was observed that a small but significant number of pediatric research protocols failed to obtain IRB approval or a waiver.
Michael Otsuka
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199243952
- eISBN:
- 9780191598142
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199243956.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
The aim of this book is to vindicate left‐libertarianism, a political philosophy which combines stringent rights of control over one's own mind, body, and life with egalitarian rights of ownership of ...
More
The aim of this book is to vindicate left‐libertarianism, a political philosophy which combines stringent rights of control over one's own mind, body, and life with egalitarian rights of ownership of the world. The book shows how John Locke's Second Treatise of Government provides the theoretical foundations for a left‐libertarianism that is both more libertarian and more egalitarian than the Kantian liberal theories of John Rawls and Thomas Nagel. The author's libertarianism is founded on a right of self‐ownership. Unlike ‘right‐wing’ libertarians such as Robert Nozick who also endorse such a right, the author argues that self‐ownership is compatible with a fully egalitarian principle of equal opportunity for welfare. In embracing this principle, his version of left‐libertarianism is more strongly egalitarian than others which are well known. The author argues that an account of legitimate political authority based upon the free consent of each is strengthened by the adoption of such an egalitarian principle. He defends a pluralistic, decentralized ideal of political society as a confederation of voluntary associations.Less
The aim of this book is to vindicate left‐libertarianism, a political philosophy which combines stringent rights of control over one's own mind, body, and life with egalitarian rights of ownership of the world. The book shows how John Locke's Second Treatise of Government provides the theoretical foundations for a left‐libertarianism that is both more libertarian and more egalitarian than the Kantian liberal theories of John Rawls and Thomas Nagel. The author's libertarianism is founded on a right of self‐ownership. Unlike ‘right‐wing’ libertarians such as Robert Nozick who also endorse such a right, the author argues that self‐ownership is compatible with a fully egalitarian principle of equal opportunity for welfare. In embracing this principle, his version of left‐libertarianism is more strongly egalitarian than others which are well known. The author argues that an account of legitimate political authority based upon the free consent of each is strengthened by the adoption of such an egalitarian principle. He defends a pluralistic, decentralized ideal of political society as a confederation of voluntary associations.
Christopher J. Anderson, André Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Ola Listhaug
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- July 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199276387
- eISBN:
- 9780191602719
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199276382.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Democratic elections are designed to create unequal outcomes—for some to win, others have to lose. This book examines the consequences of this inequality for the legitimacy of democratic political ...
More
Democratic elections are designed to create unequal outcomes—for some to win, others have to lose. This book examines the consequences of this inequality for the legitimacy of democratic political institutions and systems. Using survey data collected in old and new democracies around the globe, the authors argue that losing generates ambivalent attitudes towards political authorities. Because the efficacy and ultimately the survival of democratic regimes can be seriously threatened if the losers do not consent to their loss, the central themes of this book focus on losing—how losers respond to their loss and how institutions shape losing. While there tends to be a gap in support for the political system between winners and losers, it is not ubiquitous. The book paints a picture of losers’ consent that portrays losers as political actors whose experience and whose incentives to accept defeat are shaped both by who they are as individuals as well as the political environment in which loss is given meaning. Given that the winner-loser gap in legitimacy is a persistent feature of democratic politics, the findings presented in this book have important implications for our understanding of the functioning and stability of democracies since being able to accept losing is one of the central, if not the central, requirement of democracy. The book contributes to our understanding of political legitimacy, comparative political behaviour, the comparative study of elections and political institutions, as well as issues of democratic stability, design, and transition.Less
Democratic elections are designed to create unequal outcomes—for some to win, others have to lose. This book examines the consequences of this inequality for the legitimacy of democratic political institutions and systems. Using survey data collected in old and new democracies around the globe, the authors argue that losing generates ambivalent attitudes towards political authorities. Because the efficacy and ultimately the survival of democratic regimes can be seriously threatened if the losers do not consent to their loss, the central themes of this book focus on losing—how losers respond to their loss and how institutions shape losing. While there tends to be a gap in support for the political system between winners and losers, it is not ubiquitous. The book paints a picture of losers’ consent that portrays losers as political actors whose experience and whose incentives to accept defeat are shaped both by who they are as individuals as well as the political environment in which loss is given meaning. Given that the winner-loser gap in legitimacy is a persistent feature of democratic politics, the findings presented in this book have important implications for our understanding of the functioning and stability of democracies since being able to accept losing is one of the central, if not the central, requirement of democracy. The book contributes to our understanding of political legitimacy, comparative political behaviour, the comparative study of elections and political institutions, as well as issues of democratic stability, design, and transition.
Lainie Friedman Ross
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199273287
- eISBN:
- 9780191603655
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199273286.003.0013
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
In August 2001, the Maryland Court of Appeals harshly criticized the Kennedy Krieger Institute of Johns Hopkins University for knowingly exposing poor children to lead-based paint. This chapter ...
More
In August 2001, the Maryland Court of Appeals harshly criticized the Kennedy Krieger Institute of Johns Hopkins University for knowingly exposing poor children to lead-based paint. This chapter examines the court’s ruling that parents cannot consent to nontherapeutic research that poses any degree of risk to children subjects. It argues that the court was mistaken because parents legally can and morally should be allowed to consent to some nontherapeutic research. The research methodology to determine whether the research is approvable under the current federal regulations is also examined to refine what is meant by being ‘at risk’ for a ‘disorder or condition’.Less
In August 2001, the Maryland Court of Appeals harshly criticized the Kennedy Krieger Institute of Johns Hopkins University for knowingly exposing poor children to lead-based paint. This chapter examines the court’s ruling that parents cannot consent to nontherapeutic research that poses any degree of risk to children subjects. It argues that the court was mistaken because parents legally can and morally should be allowed to consent to some nontherapeutic research. The research methodology to determine whether the research is approvable under the current federal regulations is also examined to refine what is meant by being ‘at risk’ for a ‘disorder or condition’.
Joel Feinberg
- Published in print:
- 1987
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780195046649
- eISBN:
- 9780199868728
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195046641.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
Harm to Others is the first volume in a four‐volume work entitled The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law that addresses the question, What acts may the state rightly make criminal? ...
More
Harm to Others is the first volume in a four‐volume work entitled The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law that addresses the question, What acts may the state rightly make criminal? Feinberg identifies four liberty‐limiting, or coercion‐legitimizing, principles, each of which is the subject of a volume of his book. In the first volume, Feinberg looks at the principle of harm to others – or the harm principle – which John Stuart Mill identified as the only liberty‐limiting principle. The other principles that Feinberg considers in subsequent volumes are (1) the offense principle: it is necessary to prevent hurt or offense (as opposed to harm) to others; (2) legal paternalism: it is necessary to prevent harm to the actor herself; and (3) legal moralism: it is necessary to prevent immoral conduct whether or not it harms anyone. As a thinker who favors liberalism, Feinberg rejects legal paternalism and legal moralism, maintaining that the harm principle and the offense principle exhaust the class of morally relevant reasons for criminal prohibitions. Feinberg's examination of the harm principle begins with an account of the concept of harm and its relation to other concepts like interests, wants, hurts, offenses, rights, and consent. After addressing difficult examples such as moral harm, vicious harm, prenatal harm, and posthumous harm, Feinberg considers both the moral status of a failure to prevent harm and the problems related to assessing, comparing, and imputing harms.Less
Harm to Others is the first volume in a four‐volume work entitled The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law that addresses the question, What acts may the state rightly make criminal? Feinberg identifies four liberty‐limiting, or coercion‐legitimizing, principles, each of which is the subject of a volume of his book. In the first volume, Feinberg looks at the principle of harm to others – or the harm principle – which John Stuart Mill identified as the only liberty‐limiting principle. The other principles that Feinberg considers in subsequent volumes are (1) the offense principle: it is necessary to prevent hurt or offense (as opposed to harm) to others; (2) legal paternalism: it is necessary to prevent harm to the actor herself; and (3) legal moralism: it is necessary to prevent immoral conduct whether or not it harms anyone. As a thinker who favors liberalism, Feinberg rejects legal paternalism and legal moralism, maintaining that the harm principle and the offense principle exhaust the class of morally relevant reasons for criminal prohibitions. Feinberg's examination of the harm principle begins with an account of the concept of harm and its relation to other concepts like interests, wants, hurts, offenses, rights, and consent. After addressing difficult examples such as moral harm, vicious harm, prenatal harm, and posthumous harm, Feinberg considers both the moral status of a failure to prevent harm and the problems related to assessing, comparing, and imputing harms.
