Matthew Henry Kramer

This essay argues against the commonly held view that "ought" implies "can" in the domain of morality. More specifically, I contest the notion that nobody should ever be held morally responsible for failing to avoid the infliction of any harm that he or she has not been able to avoid through all reasonably feasible precautions in the carrying out of some worthwhile activity. The article explicates the concept of a moral right in order to show why violations of moral rights can occur even when no one has acted wrongfully in any fashion. In so doing, it will effectively be maintaining that strict liability (i.e., liability irrespective of the presence or absence of culpability) exists in morality as well as in law. When we take account of the distinction between exoneration and extenuation, we can see that scrupulously thorough precautions are never sufficient to constitute an excuse in morality. Having made that point with some extended examples, the article goes on to consider a number of possible objections - objections that lead into discussions of some basic distinctions within moral philosophy and some central principles within deontic logic.

In this wide-ranging investigation of many prominent issues in contemporary legal, political, and moral philosophy, Matthew Kramer combines penetrating critiques with original theorizing as he examines the writings of numerous major theorists (including Ronald Dworkin, H. L. A. Hart, Alan Gewirth, David Lyons, Ronald Coase, John Finnis, Jules Coleman, Anthony Kronman, and Richard Posner). While Kramer argues with the rigor that is the hallmark of the tradition of analytic philosophy, his inquiries extend not only to that tradition but also to such other traditions as Aristotelianism and Continental philosophy and Legal Realism.

Some important recent articles, including one in this journal, have sought to devise theories of rights that can transcend the longstanding debate between the Interest Theory and the Will Theory. The present essay argues that those efforts fail and that the Interest Theory and the Will Theory withstand the criticisms that have been levelled against them. To be sure, the criticisms have been valuable in that they have prompted the amplification and clarification of the two dominant theories of rights; but their upshot has been to reveal the need for the improvement, rather than the abandonment, of those theories

This article seeks to parry Ronald Dworkin’s assaults on the legal-positivist thesis that the authoritative norms in any legal system are ascertained by reference to some overarching set of criteria that may or may not require the making of moral judgments. Four main lines of argument are presented. First, Dworkin does not establish that judges disagree with one another at a criterial level in easy cases; second, even if criterial disagreements are indeed present (at least subterraneously) in all cases, they will be quite sharply limited by the need for regularity at the level of outcomes in a functional legal system; third, Dworkin errs in thinking that legal conventions must be static, and he further errs in thinking that the adjudicative practices of American law can plausibly be portrayed as based solely on convictions and not on conventions. Finally, with his recent reflections on the metaphysics of morals, Dworkin helps to reveal the resilience of a doctrine (viz., soft or inclusive positivism) that he seeks to confute.

Edited by leading contributors to the literature, Freedom: An Anthology is the most complete anthology on social, political and economic freedom ever compiled. Offers a broad guide to the vast literature on social, political and economic freedom. Contains selections from the best scholarship of recent decades as well as classic writings from Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant among others. General and sectional introductions help to orient the reader. Compiled and edited by three important contributors to the field.