Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:12:56.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An intentional basis for corporate personality - RETRACTION1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2012

Anthony Amatrudo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides a politico-jurisprudential account of the corporate personality which develops contemporary thinking about collective and shared intentions and their practical applications. It provides a model of corporate personality that is based on recent work by Bratman, Hurley, Raz and Sugden on the issues of shared intentions, interlocking preferences, and other supporting attitudes. The article will additionally detail issues of choice, coercion and will in relation to the work of scholars such as Dworkin and Velleman.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 413 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amatrudo, A. (2009) ‘Transgenerational Association: Extending the Notion of the Person’, International Journal Law in Context 5(2): 93–106.Google Scholar
Bacharach, M. (1999) ‘Interactive Team Reasoning: A Contribution to the Theory of Cooperation’, Research in Economics 53(2): 117–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. E. (1999a) ‘Shared Intention and Mutual Obligation’, in Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 142–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. E. (1999b) ‘I Intend That We J’, in Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. E. (2009) ‘Intention, Practical Rationality, and Self-Governance’, Ethics 119: 411–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J. (1991) ‘Teamwork’, Noûs 25(4): 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, G. D. H. (1997) The Social Contract and Discourses. London: Everyman.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1992) ‘Liberal Community’, in Avineri, S. and De-Shalit, A. (eds), Communitarianism and Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205–223.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1986) Law's Empire. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1979) Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1993) ‘Agreements, Coercion and Obligation’, Ethics 103: 679–706.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1999) ‘Obligations and Joint Commitment’, Utilitas 11: 143–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. (2000) Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (2001) ‘Collective Preferences, Obligations, and Rational Choice’, Economics and Philosophy 17: 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, N. and Sugden, R. (2007) ‘Collective Intentions and Team Agency’, Journal of Philosophy 104(3): 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (1978) A Treatise on Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1985) ‘Of the Original Contract’, in Miller, E. F. (ed.), Essays: Moral, Political and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hurley, S. (1989) Natural Reasons, Personality and Polity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1989) ‘Personal Identity and the Unity of Agency: A Kantian Response to Parfit’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 18: 101–132.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996) The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1969) Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McClennen, E. F. (1998) ‘Rationality and Rules’, in Danielson, P. A. (ed.), Modeling Rationality, Morality and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13–40.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (1984) Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. (1965) ‘Morality in the First Person Plural’, Law and Philosophy 14: 35–64.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1972) A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1999) ‘The Independence of Moral Theory’, in Freeman, S. (ed.), John Rawls: Collected Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 286–302.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1990) ‘Collective Intentions and Actions’, in Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E. (eds), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1996) The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. (1993) ‘Thinking as a Team’, in Paul, E. F., Miller, F. D. and Paul, J. (eds), Altruism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 175–204.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. (2000) ‘Team Preferences’, Economics and Philosophy 16: 175–204.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1991) ‘We Will Do It: An Analysis of Group-Intentions’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51(2): 249–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellerman, J. D. (2000) The Possibility of Practical Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar