Property Law and Social Morality

Author(s):  
Peter M. Gerhart
Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-227
Author(s):  
Eric R. Claeys

In this Review, I hope to critique specific parts of Property Law and Social Morality that fairly represent these various reactions. In Part I, I explain the basis for my first cheer, and situate Property Law and Social Morality in relation to other prominent moral theories of property. In Part II, I study one representative example confirming my second cheer about Gerhart’s cross-pollination experiment—his critique of economic “evolutionary” or “Demsetzian” accounts of property in chapter 4.8 In Part III, I offer what I hope is a friendly amendment to Property Law and Social Morality, to clarify several possible confusions about the scope of “corrective justice.” In Part IV, I turn to my friendly disagreements.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-340
Author(s):  
Peter M. Gerhart

In this reflection, Professor Gerhart relates the ideas of the symposium contributors to his goals in writing Property Law and Social Morality. In doing so, he reflects, in Part I, on his attempt to separate politics from private law property theory, and, in Part II, on how his framework theory provides a mechanism for integrating ideas about the content of legal doctrine from a wide variety of intellectual disciplines. In the first Part of his reflection, Professor Gerhart comments on the corrective justice/distributive justice distinction, related theories of human flourishing, and on rights theories. In the second Part of the reflection he comments on the theory of social recognition, the relationship between social values and the legal values, and the relationship between how we do act and how we should act. He concludes by reflecting on the attributes of a theory that draws different viewpoints together rather than pitting one against another.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-237
Author(s):  
Dave Fagundes

My comments will proceed in two parts. In Part I, I will briefly describe and summarize the study of moral psychology, indicating how it might apply to property law. And in Part II, I will analyze Property and Social Morality through the lens of moral psychology, showing how Professor Gerhart’s project may be advanced through a richer understanding of the content of our ethical beliefs about property and the psychological mechanisms that give rise to them.


Author(s):  
Mark J. Davison ◽  
Ann L. Monotti ◽  
Leanne Wiseman

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inggrit Fernandes

Batik artwork is one of the treasures of the nation's cultural heritage. Batik artwork is currently experiencing rapid growth. The amount of interest and market demand for this art resulted batik artwork became one of the commodities in the country and abroad. Thus, if the batik artwork is not protected then the future can be assured of a new conflict arises in the realm of intellectual property law. Act No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright has accommodated artwork batik as one of the creations that are protected by law. So that this work of art than as a cultural heritage also have economic value for its creator. Then how the legal protection of the batik artwork yaang not registered? Does this also can be protected? While in the registration of intellectual property rights is a necessity so that it has the force of law to the work produced


2001 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Irene Kreps
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document