Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Blackmail (5)
- Central case (3)
- Criminalization (3)
- Paradox (3)
- Harm (2)
-
- Manipulative threat (2)
- Moral theory (2)
- Unproductive exchange (2)
- Alienability of liberties (1)
- Allocative effects (1)
- Anger (1)
- Art (1)
- Article review (1)
- Bauer Lecture (1)
- Consent (1)
- Consequentialist (1)
- Copyright (1)
- Creativity (1)
- Deontologic case (1)
- Derivatives (1)
- Doctrine of double effect (1)
- Doctrine of single effect (1)
- Economics (1)
- Efficiency (1)
- Inalienability (1)
- Kent Greenawalt (1)
- Law (1)
- License (1)
- Life (1)
- Non-pecuniary allocation (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
What's Art Got To Do With It?, Wendy J. Gordon
What's Art Got To Do With It?, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
I would like to thank the Cardozo LR for their invitation to speak, and all those who have taken the time to discuss this issue w[ith] me in the recent past, including my commentator Marci Hamilton. I also thank the audience for its attendance and attention, and I look forward to the criticisms/reactions from all of you and from Prof Hamilton.
Letter From Professor Geoffrey P. Miller, Geoffrey P. Miller
Letter From Professor Geoffrey P. Miller, Geoffrey P. Miller
Scholarship Chronologically
The article on blackmail's central case is very good. Given the divergence of views about the nature and purposes of blackmail, focusing on the central case where the competing theories converge is a creative and fruitful intellectual move.
Truth And Consequences: The Force Of Blackmail's Central Case - Draft - 1/11/1993, Wendy J. Gordon
Truth And Consequences: The Force Of Blackmail's Central Case - Draft - 1/11/1993, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
Blackmail commentary continues to multiply. The purpose of this paper is to show what we agree on. Its primary tool will be to define what I call the "central case" of the blackmail literature, and to supply the connecting links that will allow us to see how the various theories converge where central-case blackmail is involved. Among other things, I will show how the deontological and consequentialist (economic) approaches converge in condemning central-case blackmail, and I will defend the criminalization of such blackmail.
Truth And Consequences: The Force Of Blackmail's Central Case - Draft - 01-10-1993, Wendy J. Gordon
Truth And Consequences: The Force Of Blackmail's Central Case - Draft - 01-10-1993, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
The doctrine of double effect (DDE) and my suggested correlative, the doctrine of single effect (DSE), suggest that no significance should be given to either the lawful nature of the threat or the potentially beneficial side-effects of blackmail. Under DSE, the blackmailer violates deontological constraints if he threatens disclosure in an intent to obtain money or other advantage because, inter alia, were he to have alternative threats available he would threaten anyway. The nature of the threat is outside the intent of the blackmailer in the same way the killing of civilians is outside the intent of the strategic bomber. …
Truth And Consequences: The Force Of Blackmail's Central Case - Draft - 01-04-1993, Wendy J. Gordon
Truth And Consequences: The Force Of Blackmail's Central Case - Draft - 01-04-1993, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
Blackmail commentary continues to multiply. The purpose of this paper is to show what we agree on. Its primary tool will be to define what I call the "central case" of the blackmail literature, and to supply the connecting links that will allow us to see how the various theories converge where central-case blackmail is involved. Among other things, I will show how the deontological and consequentialist (economic) approaches converge in condemning central-case blackmail, and I will defend the criminalization of such blackmail.
Truth And Consequences: The Force Of Blackmail - Outline - 01-02-1993, Wendy J. Gordon
Truth And Consequences: The Force Of Blackmail - Outline - 01-02-1993, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
This paper: To show what we agree on by explication of the deontologic justification for blackmail prohibitions. In the process· to make the deontologic nature of bmail clearer; to show how the deont & consequentialist approaches agree on the central case; to defend the criminaliz of the central case in liberal (non-libertarian) terms; to provide some tentative observations on the non-central cases