A liberal argument for slavery

Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (4):510–536 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The slavery contract is not a rights violation since the right not to be enslaved and the right not to give out a benefit are waivable and the conjunction of their voluntary waiver is not itself a rights violation. The case for the contract being pejoratively exploitative is not clear. Hence given the general presumption in favor of liberty of contract, such a transaction ought to be permitted. The contract is also not invalid on the grounds that the wrongdoer’s consent to it necessarily reflects involuntariness or irrationality or on the grounds that it is logically impossible for the wrongdoer to satisfy the contract. Allowing such contracts may not have desirable consequences, but for the liberal this by itself is not a sufficient reason against allowing them. One case where the slavery contract might be relevant is where a victim’s agent or the state agrees to waive its claim to harsh punishment in return for the offender agreeing to be enslaved.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,497

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
576 (#31,782)

6 months
30 (#107,856)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stephen Kershnar
Fredonia State University

References found in this work

6. Identification and Wholeheartedness.Harry Frankfurt - 1993 - In John Martin Fischer & Mark Ravizza (eds.), Perspectives on moral responsibility. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. pp. 170-187.
Liberalism.Dworkin Ronald - 1978 - In Stuart Hampshire (ed.), Public and Private Morality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
The inalienability of autonomy.Arthur Kuflik - 1984 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (4):271-298.

Add more references