dc.creatorMonti, Ezequiel
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-22T11:24:00Z
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-01T16:53:10Z
dc.date.available2023-08-22T11:24:00Z
dc.date.available2024-08-01T16:53:10Z
dc.date.created2023-08-22T11:24:00Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifierhttps://repositorio.utdt.edu/handle/20.500.13098/12012
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325223000071
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/9536882
dc.description.abstractThere are reasons to believe that conventional obligations are impossible. Thus, it could be argued that for me to have an obligation to Φ in virtue of the fact that a convention so requires, it must be the case that I have a convention-independent obligation to do some thing else such that, given the existence of the convention, Φing is a way of doing just that. But, then, my obligation to Φ would not really be conventional at all. On closer inspection, so-called conventional obligations turn out to be no more than a specification of what our nonconventional obligations require given the circumstances. In this paper, I shall argue that contra to what this argument suggests, there can be genuinely conventional obliga tions. To do so, I develop a second-personal account of conventional obligations, accord ing to which obligations are grounded by conventions in virtue of an explanation that does not follow the indicated pattern
dc.publisherCambridge University Press
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectConventional obligations
dc.subjectLaw
dc.subjectDerecho
dc.subjectObligaciones
dc.subjectGenuinely conventional obligations
dc.titleAre There Any Conventional Obligations?
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución