Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theory
<p dir="ltr">The standard rational choice theory is based on utilitarian grounds and, consequently, treats all preferences (utilities) as commensurable. Hence, it should treat substantive pain, that is, the loss of reputation/income resulting from defamation, as equivalent to dignity...
محفوظ في:
| المؤلف الرئيسي: | |
|---|---|
| منشور في: |
2024
|
| الموضوعات: | |
| الوسوم: |
إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
|
| _version_ | 1864513549995343872 |
|---|---|
| author | Elias L. Khalil (20518877) |
| author_facet | Elias L. Khalil (20518877) |
| author_role | author |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv | Elias L. Khalil (20518877) |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv | 2024-01-01T06:00:00Z |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101137 |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv | https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Blasphemy_laws_contra_defamation_laws_An_anomaly_facing_rational_choice_theory/28882568 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv | CC BY 4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv | Economics Applied economics Human society Political science Sociology Law and legal studies Law in context Philosophy and religious studies Applied ethics Philosophy Dignity loss vs. substantive loss Context-dependent preferences Substantive preferences (wellbeing) Dignity preferences Profanity Insults Verbal abuse Harassment Self-worthiness Institutions Civility rules Juridical rules Formal rules Informal rules The falwell vs. Hustler blasphemy trial The Alex Jones defamation trial |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv | Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theory |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv | Text Journal contribution info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion text contribution to journal |
| description | <p dir="ltr">The standard rational choice theory is based on utilitarian grounds and, consequently, treats all preferences (utilities) as commensurable. Hence, it should treat substantive pain, that is, the loss of reputation/income resulting from defamation, as equivalent to dignity loss, that is, the loss of sense of worthiness/morale resulting from blasphemy such as slurs and insults. However, theory faces an anomaly: it cannot explain why those countries that enact defamation laws are hesitant enacting blasphemy laws. This paper solves the anomaly by finding that substantive pain, on the one hand, and dignity pain, on the other, are incommensurable. Substantive pain is definite, while dignity pain is context-dependent as it can be zero if the leveler of the insult is a child, an unstable person, or a person regarded of low-worthiness. Thus, we need to modify rational choice theory to account for the incommensurability between the two kinds of pain (that is, two kinds of utility) and, corollary, why defamation laws do not usually entail blasphemy laws.</p><h2>Other Information</h2><p dir="ltr">Published in: Social Sciences & Humanities Open<br>License: <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101137" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101137</a></p> |
| eu_rights_str_mv | openAccess |
| id | Manara2_85c011b185681944d3c3d9429d9044ee |
| identifier_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101137 |
| network_acronym_str | Manara2 |
| network_name_str | Manara2 |
| oai_identifier_str | oai:figshare.com:article/28882568 |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv | |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv | |
| repository_id_str | |
| rights_invalid_str_mv | CC BY 4.0 |
| spelling | Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theoryElias L. Khalil (20518877)EconomicsApplied economicsHuman societyPolitical scienceSociologyLaw and legal studiesLaw in contextPhilosophy and religious studiesApplied ethicsPhilosophyDignity loss vs. substantive lossContext-dependent preferencesSubstantive preferences (wellbeing)Dignity preferencesProfanityInsultsVerbal abuseHarassmentSelf-worthinessInstitutionsCivility rulesJuridical rulesFormal rulesInformal rulesThe falwell vs. Hustler blasphemy trialThe Alex Jones defamation trial<p dir="ltr">The standard rational choice theory is based on utilitarian grounds and, consequently, treats all preferences (utilities) as commensurable. Hence, it should treat substantive pain, that is, the loss of reputation/income resulting from defamation, as equivalent to dignity loss, that is, the loss of sense of worthiness/morale resulting from blasphemy such as slurs and insults. However, theory faces an anomaly: it cannot explain why those countries that enact defamation laws are hesitant enacting blasphemy laws. This paper solves the anomaly by finding that substantive pain, on the one hand, and dignity pain, on the other, are incommensurable. Substantive pain is definite, while dignity pain is context-dependent as it can be zero if the leveler of the insult is a child, an unstable person, or a person regarded of low-worthiness. Thus, we need to modify rational choice theory to account for the incommensurability between the two kinds of pain (that is, two kinds of utility) and, corollary, why defamation laws do not usually entail blasphemy laws.</p><h2>Other Information</h2><p dir="ltr">Published in: Social Sciences & Humanities Open<br>License: <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101137" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101137</a></p>2024-01-01T06:00:00ZTextJournal contributioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontextcontribution to journal10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101137https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Blasphemy_laws_contra_defamation_laws_An_anomaly_facing_rational_choice_theory/28882568CC BY 4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:figshare.com:article/288825682024-01-01T06:00:00Z |
| spellingShingle | Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theory Elias L. Khalil (20518877) Economics Applied economics Human society Political science Sociology Law and legal studies Law in context Philosophy and religious studies Applied ethics Philosophy Dignity loss vs. substantive loss Context-dependent preferences Substantive preferences (wellbeing) Dignity preferences Profanity Insults Verbal abuse Harassment Self-worthiness Institutions Civility rules Juridical rules Formal rules Informal rules The falwell vs. Hustler blasphemy trial The Alex Jones defamation trial |
| status_str | publishedVersion |
| title | Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theory |
| title_full | Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theory |
| title_fullStr | Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theory |
| title_full_unstemmed | Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theory |
| title_short | Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theory |
| title_sort | Blasphemy laws contra defamation laws: An anomaly facing rational choice theory |
| topic | Economics Applied economics Human society Political science Sociology Law and legal studies Law in context Philosophy and religious studies Applied ethics Philosophy Dignity loss vs. substantive loss Context-dependent preferences Substantive preferences (wellbeing) Dignity preferences Profanity Insults Verbal abuse Harassment Self-worthiness Institutions Civility rules Juridical rules Formal rules Informal rules The falwell vs. Hustler blasphemy trial The Alex Jones defamation trial |