We shall introduce a set of fundamental legal concepts, providing a definition of each of them. This set will include, besides the usual deontic modalities (obligation, prohibition and permission), the following notions: obligative rights (rights related to other’s obligations), permissive rights, erga-omnes rights, normative conditionals, liability rights, different kinds of legal powers, potestative rights (rights to produce legal results), result-declarations (acts intended to produce legal determinations), and sources of the law.

ABSTRACTThe article uses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the same-sex marriage caseObergefell v. Hodgesas the springboard for a general enquiry into the nature and existence of a constitutional right to liberty under the American Constitution. The discussion is divided into two main parts. The first examines the meaning and the justifiability of there being a moral right to liberty as a matter of political philosophy. Two such rights are distinguished and defended: first, a right not to be coerced (...) by the state when the state is motivated by improper reasons ; and second, a right not to be coerced by the state when there are insufficient justifying reasons for the state to do so, irrespective of how such state coercion may be motivated. Neither right is regarded as “absolute,” and so it is morally permissible for the state to override such rights in certain circumstances. The second part of the article examines the distinct and additional considerations that must be taken into account when these two moral rights to liberty are fashioned into corresponding legal rights under American constitutional law. Both such rights survive the transformation, but each becomes altered somewhat in its content. This legal transformation includes recognition of the nonabsolute nature of moral rights, such recognition taking the form of some doctrine of “compelling state interests.” The discussion in these two main parts of the article is prefaced with a defense of the article's use of political philosophy to inform constitutional law, a defense motivated by Chief Justice Robert's denunciation of such an approach to constitutional law in his opinion inObergefell. (shrink)

We regularly wield powers that, upon close scrutiny, appear remarkably magical. By sheer exercise of will, we bring into existence things that have never existed before. With but a nod, we effect the disappearance of things that have long served as barriers to the actions of others. And, by mere resolve, we generate things that pose significant obstacles to others' exercise of liberty. What is the nature of these things that we create and destroy by our mere decision to do (...) so? The answer: the rights and obligations of others. And by what seemingly magical means do we alter these rights and obligations? By making promises and issuing or revoking consent When we make promises, we generate obligations for ourselves, and when we give consent, we create rights for others. Since the rights and obligations that are affected by means of promising and consenting largely define the boundaries of permissible action, our exercise of these seemingly magical powers can significantly affect the lives and liberties of others. (shrink)

In this Symposium contribution, I argue that ordinary moral discourse recognizes six categories of morally significant actions: positively obligatory actions ; negatively obligatory actions ; supererogatory actions ; suberogatory actions ; quasi-supererogatory actions ; and amoral or morally neutral actions . As I argue, super-, sub-, and quasi-supererogatory actions paradoxically rely upon the existence of "non-obligatory oughts"--moral injunctions to do what as a moral matter we need not do. The remainder of the article is devoted to developing a theory that (...) makes these non-obligatory oughts coherent. The theory that I advance distinguishes deontic duties from aretaic duties, and derives the oughts of super- and suberogation from our aretaic duties to develop certain dispositions or character traits. As I argue, our aretaic duties require us to perform actions that are deontically supererogatory and to refrain from actions that are deontically suberogatory. Only if we conceive of super- and suberogation as simultaneously governed by deontic permissions and aretaic obligations can we make sense of the dual claims implicit in daily gossip that we are obligated to cultivate such virtues as kindness and generosity, and that kindness and generosity consist in doing what we are not obligated to do. As the title elliptically suggests, the article thus advances the claim that we have duties to go beyond the call of duty. (shrink)

The paper proceeds in four parts. First, a theory of liberty is sketched, which theory depends heavily upon three distinctions in ethics. These distinctions are shown to be maintainable using no more than resources of a standard deontic logic. That logic is itself recast from the trial of the required, the forbidden, and the optional into a simpler logic of the obligatory and the permitted. Secondly, two challenges presented to this theory of liberty and its use of standard deontic logic, (...) are examined. These challenges stem from the seeming existence of actions and omissions that are neither forbidden or required, on the one hand, nor morally indifferent, on the other. Such actions are subclassified as supererogatory , suberogatory , or quasi-erogatory . Third, attempts to reduce these three kinds of not indifferent but not obligatory actions into either indifference of a kind, or obligation of a kind, are rejected. Fourth, the moral permissibility of these three kinds of not indifferent but not obligatory actions is defended, and the non-punishability of such permissible if non-otimific actions is defended on retributivist grounds. Der Artikel besteht aus vier Teilen. Im ersten Teil wird eine Freiheitstheorie skizziert, die auf drei Differenzierungen in der Ethik basiert. Allein auf Grundlage der Standard-deontischen Logik wird gezeigt, daß die Differenzierungen aufrechterhalten werden können. Die Standard-Logik selbst, gebildet aus der Trias von "geboten", "verboten" und "erlaubt", wird in eine einfachere Logik des Obligatorischen und des Erlaubten umgeformt. Im zweiten Teil werden zwei Kritikpunkte an der Freiheitstheorie und ihrem Gebrauch der üblichen deontischen Logik untersucht. Die Kritikpunkte ergeben sich aus der Tatsache, daß es offenbar Handlungen und Unterlassungen gibt, die einerseits weder verboten noch geboten, andererseits aber auch nicht moralisch indifferent sind. Solche Handlungen werden eingeteilt in die supererogatorischen , die suberogatorischen und die quasi-erogatorischen Handlungen. Als Drittes werden verschiedene Versuche verworfen, die drei Typen nicht indifferenter, aber auch nicht obligatorischer Handlungen entweder auf eine wie auch immer geartete Indifferenz oder auf eine wie auch immer geartete Obligation zu reduzieren. Schließlich wird die These vertreten, daß die drei Typen nicht indifferenter und nicht obligatorischer Handlungen moralisch erlaubt sind, und daß erlaubte, wenn auch nicht optimale Handlungen - auf der Grundlage einer Theorie der Vergeltung - nicht strafbar sind. (shrink)