|
Showing 1 - 25 of
29 matches in All Departments
The question, "Why should I obey the law?" introduces a
contemporary puzzle that is as old as philosophy itself. The puzzle
is especially troublesome if we think of cases in which breaking
the law is not otherwise wrongful, and in which the chances of
getting caught are negligible. Philosophers from Socrates to H.L.A.
Hart have struggled to give reasoned support to the idea that we do
have a general moral duty to obey the law but, more recently, the
greater number of learned voices has expressed doubt that there is
any such duty, at least as traditionally conceived. The thought
that there is no such duty poses a challenge to our ordinary
understanding of political authority and its legitimacy. In what
sense can political officials have a right to rule us if there is
no duty to obey the laws they lay down? Some thinkers, concluding
that a general duty to obey the law cannot be defended, have gone
so far as to embrace philosophical anarchism, the view that the
state is necessarily illegitimate. Others argue that the duty to
obey the law can be grounded on the idea of consent, or on
fairness, or on other ideas, such as community.
Russia is moving dramatically ahead in reforming its economy and
its firms. This joint Russian and American work focuses on the key
issue in the Russian economic reform process--how to convert
state-owned firms into successful private companies capable of
competing in a market economy. Unique case studies of Russian
enterprises, their legal and internal structure, management
philosophy, and economic performance, provide insightful analyses
of the ongoing Russian experience with economic reform. Recent
Russian legislation and its implications for privatization are also
discussed.
The question, 'Why should I obey the law?' introduces a
contemporary puzzle that is as old as philosophy itself. The puzzle
is especially troublesome if we think of cases in which breaking
the law is not otherwise wrongful, and in which the chances of
getting caught are negligible. Philosophers from Socrates to H.L.A.
Hart have struggled to give reasoned support to the idea that we do
have a general moral duty to obey the law but, more recently, the
greater number of learned voices has expressed doubt that there is
any such duty, at least as traditionally conceived. The thought
that there is no such duty poses a challenge to our ordinary
understanding of political authority and its legitimacy. In what
sense can political officials have a right to rule us if there is
no duty to obey the laws they lay down? Some thinkers, concluding
that a general duty to obey the law cannot be defended, have gone
so far as to embrace philosophical anarchism, the view that the
state is necessarily illegitimate. Others argue that the duty to
obey the law can be grounded on the idea of consent, or on
fairness, or on other ideas, such as community.
It's no good having a good idea if you cannot communicate it to
someone else. John Simmons, in this stimulating and readable book,
demonstrates how we can write and use words more creatively and
persuasively in business today. From differentiating your company
from another, to injecting life and vibrancy into your products and
services, to writing everyday emails, this cult business book by
the modern-day guru of business writing (now released as a new 21st
anniversary edition) shows ways in which we can use words to gain
competitive advantage in business life through "tone of voice".
John Simmons' method of writing powerfully for business is based on
his "WE, ME, THEM and IT" model, which over the past 25 years has
been adopted by tens of thousands of marketers and other
professionals around of the world. Simmons argues that effective
business writing is about learning to love writing and words, and
bringing more of our real selves to working life.
A. John Simmons is widely regarded as one of the most innovative
and creative of today's political philosophers. His work on
political obligation is regarded as definitive and he is also
internationally respected as an interpreter of John Locke. The
characteristic features of clear argumentation and careful
scholarship that have been hallmarks of his philosophy are
everywhere evident in this collection. The essays focus on the
problems of political obligation and state legitimacy as well as on
historical theories of property and justice. Cumulatively the
collection presents a distinctive social and political philosophy,
exploring the nature of our most fundamental rights and
obligations, and displaying the power and plausibility of Lockean
ideal theory.
Modern states claim rights of jurisdiction and control over
particular geographical areas and their associated natural
resources. Boundaries of Authority explores the possible moral
bases for such territorial claims by states, in the process arguing
that many of these territorial claims in fact lack any moral
justification. The book maintains throughout that the requirement
of states' justified authority over persons has normative priority
over, and as a result severely restricts, the kinds of territorial
rights that states can justifiably claim, and it argues that the
mere effective administration of justice within a geographical area
is insufficient to ground moral authority over residents of that
area. The book argues that only a theory of territorial rights that
takes seriously the morality of the actual history of states'
acquisitions of power over land and the land's residents can
adequately explain the nature and extent of states' moral rights
over particular territories. Part I of the book examines the
interconnections between states' claimed rights of authority over
particular sets of subject persons and states' claimed authority to
control particular territories. It contains an extended critique of
the dominant "Kantian functionalist " approach to such issues. Part
II organizes, explains, and criticizes the full range of extant
theories of states' territorial rights, arguing that a
little-appreciated Lockean approach to territorial rights is in
fact far better able to meet the principal desiderata for such
theories. Where the first two parts of the book concern primarily
states' claims to jurisdiction over territories, Part III of the
book looks closely at the more property-like territorial rights
that states claim - in particular, their claimed rights to control
over the natural resources on and beneath their territories and
their claimed rights to control and restrict movement across
(including immigration over) their territorial borders.
This reader introduces students of philosophy and politics to the
contemporary critical literature on the classical social contract
theorists: Thomas Hobbes (1599-1697), John Locke (1632-1704), and
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Twelve thoughtfully selected
essays guide students through the texts, familiarizing them with
key elements of the theory, while at the same time introducing them
to current scholarly controversies. A bibliography of additional
work is provided. The classical social contract theorists represent
one of the two or three most important modern traditions in
political thought. Their ideas dominated political debates in
Europe and North America in the 17th and 18th centuries,
influencing political thinkers, statesmen, constitution makers,
revolutionaries, and other political actors alike. Debates during
the French Revolution and the early history of the American
Republic were often conducted in the language of Hobbes, Locke, and
Rousseau. Later political philosophy can only be understood against
this backdrop. And the contemporary revival of contractarian moral
and political thought, represented by John Rawls' A Theory of
Justice (1971) or David GauthierOs Morals by Agreement (1986),
needs to be appreciated in the history of this tradition.
The central question in political philosophy is whether political
states have the right to coerce their constituents and whether
citizens have a moral duty to obey the commands of their state. In
this 2005 book, Christopher Heath Wellman and A. John Simmons
defend opposing answers to this question. Wellman bases his
argument on samaritan obligations to perform easy rescues, arguing
that each of us has a moral duty to obey the law as his or her fair
share of the communal samaritan chore of rescuing our compatriots
from the perils of the state of nature. Simmons counters that this,
and all other attempts to explain our duty to obey the law, fail.
He defends a position of philosophical anarchism, the view that no
existing state is legitimate and that there is no strong moral
presumption in favor of obedience to, or compliance with, any
existing state.
The central question in political philosophy is whether political
states have the right to coerce their constituents and whether
citizens have a moral duty to obey the commands of their state. In
this 2005 book, Christopher Heath Wellman and A. John Simmons
defend opposing answers to this question. Wellman bases his
argument on samaritan obligations to perform easy rescues, arguing
that each of us has a moral duty to obey the law as his or her fair
share of the communal samaritan chore of rescuing our compatriots
from the perils of the state of nature. Simmons counters that this,
and all other attempts to explain our duty to obey the law, fail.
He defends a position of philosophical anarchism, the view that no
existing state is legitimate and that there is no strong moral
presumption in favor of obedience to, or compliance with, any
existing state.
The characteristic features of clear argumentation and careful scholarship that have been hallmarks of the philosophy of A. John Simmons are everywhere evident in this collection. The essays focus on the problems of political obligation and state legitimacy as well as on historical theories of property and justice. Cumulatively the collection presents a distinctive social and political philosophy, exploring the nature of our most fundamental rights and obligations, and displaying the power and plausibility of Lockean ideal theory.
Outlining the major competing theories in the history of
political and moral philosophy--from Locke and Hume through Hart,
Rawls, and Nozick--John Simmons attempts to understand and solve
the ancient problem of political obligation. Under what conditions
and for what reasons (if any), he asks, are we morally bound to
obey the law and support the political institutions of our
countries?
John Locke's political theory has been the subject of many detailed
treatments by philosophers and political scientists. "The Lockean
Theory of Rights" is a systematic, full-length study of Locke's
theory of rights and of its potential for making genuine
contributions to contemporary debates about rights and their place
in political philosophy. The book refers extensively to Locke's
published and unpublished works, arguing that they reveal a
coherent and sophisticated theory of rights which relies far less
directly on his theological foundations than is commonly supposed.
In the process, the author reconstructs a Lockean theory of rights
and shows how it illuminates many issues in contemporary moral and
political philosophy, including the justification of punishment,
problems concerning ethical impartialism and familial morality, the
basis and extent of property rights, and rights and duties of
justice and charity.
This book completes A. John Simmons's exploration and development
of Lockean moral and political philosophy, a project begun in The
Lockean Theory of Rights (Princeton paperback edition, 1994). Here
Simmons discusses the Lockean view of the nature of, grounds for,
and limits on political relations between persons. Originally
published in 1993. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest
print-on-demand technology to again make available previously
out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton
University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of
these important books while presenting them in durable paperback
and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is
to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in
the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press
since its founding in 1905.
This book completes A. John Simmons's exploration and
development of Lockean moral and political philosophy, a project
begun in The Lockean Theory of Rights (Princeton paperback edition,
1994). Here Simmons discusses the Lockean view of the nature of,
grounds for, and limits on political relations between persons.
Originally published in 1995.
The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand
technology to again make available previously out-of-print books
from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press.
These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these
important books while presenting them in durable paperback
editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly
increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the
thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since
its founding in 1905.
|
Leaves (Paperback)
John Simmons
|
R425
R383
Discovery Miles 3 830
Save R42 (10%)
|
Ships in 10 - 15 working days
|
The problem of justifying legal punishment has been at the heart
of legal and social philosophy from the very earliest recorded
philosophical texts. However, despite several hundred years of
debate, philosophers have not reached agreement about how legal
punishment can be morally justified. That is the central issue
addressed by the contributors to this volume. All of the essays
collected here have been published in the highly respected journal
"Philosophy & Public Affairs." Taken together, they offer not
only significant proposals for improving established theories of
punishment and compelling arguments against long-held positions,
but also ori-ginal and important answers to the question, "How is
punishment to be justified?"
Part I of this collection, "Justifications of Punishment,"
examines how any practice of punishment can be morally justified.
Contributors include Jeffrie G. Murphy, Alan H. Goldman, Warren
Quinn, C. S. Nino, and Jean Hampton. The papers in Part II,
"Problems of Punishment," address more specific issues arising in
established theories. The authors are Martha C. Nussbaum, Michael
Davis, and A. John Simmons. In the final section, "Capital
Punishment," contributors discuss the justifiability of capital
punishment, one of the most debated philosophical topics of this
century. Essayists include David A. Conway, Jeffrey H. Reiman,
Stephen Nathanson, and Ernest van den Haag.
This is a pre-1923 historical reproduction that was curated for
quality. Quality assurance was conducted on each of these books in
an attempt to remove books with imperfections introduced by the
digitization process. Though we have made best efforts - the books
may have occasional errors that do not impede the reading
experience. We believe this work is culturally important and have
elected to bring the book back into print as part of our continuing
commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide.
|
You may like...
The Party
Elizabeth Day
Paperback
(1)
R311
R207
Discovery Miles 2 070
An Island
Karen Jennings
Paperback
(1)
R267
Discovery Miles 2 670
The Playlist
Melina Lewis
Paperback
R239
Discovery Miles 2 390
|