John Kleinig

We would not be far wide of the mark if we suggested that the prevailing social ideology is structured round the presumption that interpersonal and political relationships ought to be, and for the most part are, based on the mutual consent of the parties involved. Liberal democratic theory has secured for consent a crucial role in the justification of political obligation and authority. In law, the maximvolenti non fit injuria,to the one who consents no wrong is done, constitutes a defence in cases where one person invades the interests of another. In the bioethical field, there is a preoccupation with the formulation of a standard of ‘informed consent’ in patient-doctor and subject-researcher relationships. And in the broader domain of ethical theory there is an influential view that consensual acts do not differ in moral quality from selfregarding behaviour.

Rather than treating them as discrete and incommensurable ideas, we sketch some connections between human flourishing and human dignity, and link them to human rights. We contend that the metaphor of flourishing provides an illuminating aspirational framework for thinking about human development and obligations, and that the idea of human dignity is a critical element within that discussion. We conclude with some suggestions as to how these conceptions of human dignity and human flourishing might underpin and inform appeals to human rights

The economically deprived come into contact with the criminal court system in disproportionate number. This collection of original, interactive essays, written from a variety of ideological perspectives, explores some of the more troubling questions and ethical dilemmas inherent in this situation. The contributors, including well-known legal and political philosophers Philip Pettit, George Fletcher, and Jeremy Waldron, examine issues such as heightened vulnerability, indigent representation, and rotten social background defenses.

The arguments of the fourth chapter of 'utilitarianism' have been given considerable attention in recent years. the present article suggests that the major (and most controversial) part of the chapter is concerned not so much with the proof as with the kind of proof to which the principle of utility is susceptible. it is argued that the chapter progresses in an orderly manner to outline the kinds of considerations which would be necessary to show (a) that happiness is desirable as an end; (b) that the general happiness is desirable as an end; and (c) that the general happiness alone is desirable as an end. as well it is maintained that mill's arguments are not susceptible to the traditional objections raised against them (the naturalistic fallacy; arguing from verbal to logical similarities; fallacy of composition.).