Abstract
In his paper Role Obligations, Michael Hardimon defends an account of the nature and justification of institutional obligations that he takes to be clearly superior to the voluntarist view. Hardimon argues that this presents a misleading and distorted picture of role obligations (and of morality generally); and in its best form he claims this still leaves out of its understanding of even contractual role obligations an absolutely vital factor. I argue against Hardimon that a related version of this standard view of institutional obligations is for a very good reason - namely, that it is true.
Full Text
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call