This article develops an axiomatic theory of induction that speaks to the recent debate on Bayesian orgulity. It shows the exact principles associated with the belief that data can corroborate universal laws. We identify two types of disbelief about induction: skepticism that the existence of universal laws of nature can be determined empirically, and skepticism that the true law of nature, if it exists, can be successfully identified. We formalize and characterize these two dispositions toward induction by introducing novel axioms (...) for subjective probabilities. We also relate these dispositions to the axiom of σ-additivity. (shrink)

This is a review of Larry Alexander and Kim Ferzan’s _Reflections on Crime and Culpability_, a sequel to the authors’ _Crime and Culpability_. The two books set out a sweeping proposal for reforming our criminal law in ways that are at once commonsensical and mindbogglingly radical. But even if one is not on board with such a radical experiment, simply thinking it through holds many unexpected lessons: startlingly new insights about the current regime and about novel ways of doing legal (...) theory, some of which are explored in this essay. (shrink)

Role morality refers to the special obligations and rights that are associated with occupying certain professional roles—lawyer, doctor, journalist, soldier and others. There are a number of moral puzzles peculiar to this domain. To what extent can someone whose role involves acting in someone else’s behalf avoid being blamed for aiding him in actions he would be blamed for if acting outside that role? What is one to make of situations in which the performance of one’s role seems to call (...) for the actors to engage in conflicting behavior, for example, two lawyers representing two disputing clients? Is it coherent to speak of some roles as involving obligations to institutions rather than to people? In this chapter the problems are spelled out, the current debate surveyed and tentatively different conclusions from the established ones are suggested. (shrink)

We characterize general constraints under which rational choices are characterized by asymmetric revealed preferences. A key feature of our main characterization result is expressed by the leveling axiom. We also consider the special case of a law-abiding decision maker who chooses optimally among legal options. We show that the law does not necessarily satisfy the leveling axiom and, therefore, transitivity adds empirical content to law-abiding choices.

This essay explores the case against strict liability offenses as part of the more general debate about proportional punishment. This debate takes on a very different look in light of a formal result derived by the authors elsewhere, that is briefly summarized and whose implications are pursued here. Traditional objections that consequentialists have mounted against the deontologists’/retributivists’ defense of proportionality fall by the wayside, but a new threat to the proportionality requirement replaces it: the ease with which any such requirement (...) can be circumvented. (shrink)

The standard economic theory of choice is extended to accommodate a particular form of akratic choice. The empirical content of the new theory is fully characterized. A characterization of revealed akratic choice, in terms of observable choice only, is also provided. These results are consistent with the viewpoint that akrasia is a concept that can be empirically substantiated.

For every legal concept X, there are clear instances exemplifying an X and clear instances exemplifying a non-X. The cases that come before courts are those that seem to lie in between, being neither clearly an X nor clearly a non-X. It is tempting to think that, being in-between, they should receive an in-between treatment, that is, to the extent that they are an X they should be treated as an X. If they are sixty percent toward being an X, (...) they should get sixty percent of the treatment due an X. But this presupposes that in-between cases can be rank-ordered at least roughly according to the degree of their X-ness. This Article explains why that generally cannot be done and why courts therefore go for an either/or approach: something gets treated either as an X or as a non-X. The explanation is rooted in the kind of phenomena explored in the theory of social choice and multi-criterial decision-making. (shrink)