Agreements, coercion, and obligation

Ethics 103 (4):679-706 (1993)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Typical agreements can be seen as joint decisions, inherently involving obligations of a distinctive kind. These obligations derive from the joint commitment' that underlies a joint decision. One consequence of this understanding of agreements and their obligations is that coerced agreements are possible and impose obligations. It is not that the parties to an agreement should always conform to it, all things considered. Unless one is released from the agreement, however, one has some reason to conform to it, whatever else is true. In this sense, one is under an obligation to the other parties. The relevance of these points to the issue of political obligation is discussed.

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
666 (#21,754)

6 months
129 (#21,568)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Margaret Gilbert
University of California, Irvine

Citations of this work

Bald-faced lies! Lying without the intent to deceive.Roy Sorensen - 2007 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (2):251-264.
We-intentions revisited.Raimo Tuomela - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 125 (3):327 - 369.
Collective guilt and collective guilt feelings.Margaret Gilbert - 2002 - The Journal of Ethics 6 (2):115-143.
Group Knowledge and Epistemic Defeat.J. Adam Carter - 2015 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 2.

View all 61 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references