Law, Economics, and Morality examines the possibility of combining economic methodology and deontological morality through explicit and direct incorporation of moral constraints into economic models. Economic analysis of law is a powerful analytical methodology. However, as a purely consequentialist approach, which determines the desirability of acts and rules solely by assessing the goodness of their outcomes, standard cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is normatively objectionable. Moderate deontology prioritizes such values as autonomy, basic liberties, truth-telling, and promise-keeping over the promotion of good outcomes. It holds that there are constraints on promoting the good. Such constraints may be overridden only if enough good (or bad) is at stake. While moderate deontology conforms to prevailing moral intuitions and legal doctrines, it is arguably lacking in methodological rigor and precision.The first attempt to bridge the gap between economic analysis and common sense morality
Addresses the legitimacy of employing cost-benefit analysis (CBA) by agencies, including the advantages of using CBA and the importance of adding moral constraints to it
Discusses the legitimacy and appropriate scope of anti-terrorist measures, such as targeted killings
Addresses the legitimacy of employing cost-benefit analysis (CBA) by agencies, including the advantages of using CBA and the importance of adding moral constraints to it
Discusses the legitimacy and appropriate scope of anti-terrorist measures, such as targeted killings