Metrics

  • citations in SCIndeks: [1]
  • citations in CrossRef:[1]
  • citations in Google Scholar:[]
  • visits in previous 30 days:6
  • full-text downloads in 30 days:5

Contents

article: 2 from 10  
Back back to result list
2019, vol. 9, iss. 17, pp. 25-38
Paradox of the coercive consent within the theory of the social contract
University of Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, B&H

emailaleksandar.savanovic@fpn.unibl.org
Abstract
In this paper we will analyse some preconditions that must be met by a social contract that pleads to be valid one. When do we accept a contract as a valid agreement? There are some important classic issues, many of them are still open for discussion. With regard to this, we focus on the on the following question: Is a contract the result of free will? What is (if any) the meaning of the phrase 'coercive agreement' or 'coercive consent'? There are two extreme positions: acceptance of coercive agreement without any preconditions or rejection of coercive agreement by some deontological presumption or structural/logical contradiction claim.
References
Anderson, S. (2010) The enforcement approach to coercion. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 5(1): 1-32
Bellamy, R. (2007) Political constitutionalism: A republican defence of the constitutional democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Beran, H. (1987) The consent theory of political obligation. London: Croom Helm
Berman, M. (2002) The normative functions of coercion claims. Legal Theory, 8(1): 45-89
Buchanan, J. (1975) The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago
Edmundson, W. (1998) Three anarchical fallacies: An essay on political authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gilbert, M. (2006) A theory of political obligation. New York: Oxford University Press
Gilbert, M. (1993) Agreements, coercion, and obligation. Ethics, 103(4): 679-706
Hart, H.L.A. (1994) The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Hayek, F.A. (2013) Law, legislation and liberty. London: Routledge
Hobbes, T. (1998) Leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press
Kant, I. (1996) The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Klosko, G. (2005) Political obligations. New York: Oxford University Press
Lamond, G. (2000) The coerciveness of law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 20(1): 39-62
Locke, J. (1980) Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company
Nagel, T. (1987) Moral conflict and political legitimacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16(3):215-240
Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, state and utopia. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Nozick, R. (1969) Coercion. in: Morgenbesser S; Suppes P; White M. [ed.] Philosophy, science, and method: Essays in honor of Ernest Nagel, New York: St. Martin's Press, str. 440-472
Pettit, P. (1997) Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Pettit, P. (2012) On the people's terms: A republican theory and model of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rawls, J. (1999) Theory of justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press
Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard: Harvard University Press
Riley, P. (1982) Will and political legitimacy: A critical exposition of social contract theory in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant and Hegel. Harvard: Harvard University Press
Rothbard, M. (2002) For a new liberty. London: Macmillan
Rousseau, J.J. (2002) The social contract and the first and second discourses. New Haven-London: Yale University Press
Savanović, A. (2019) Teorija republike. Banja Luka: Fakultet političkih nauka
Simmons, A.J. (2001) Justification and legitimacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Skyrms, B. (1996) Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Timmerman, P. (2014) Moral contract theory and social cognition. New York: Springer International Publishing
Weale, A. (2013) Democratic justice & the social contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Wolf, R.P. (1998) In defence of anarchism. Berkeley: University of California Press
 

About

article language: Serbian
document type: Review Paper
DOI: 10.5937/politeia0-21889
published in SCIndeks: 13/02/2020
peer review method: double-blind
Creative Commons License 4.0

Related records