2

This question already has an answer here:

My question, Is there anything which may not be included in an agreement?, was put on hold as being too broad.

This question is intended as a political theory (philosophy) question. I limited the scope of the question by specifying certain theories that I am interested in. To me, it seems that the question is not too broad because a good answer would be required to reference those theories explicitly, and because we could judge what a good answer is by how well it summarizes, compares, or contrasts those theories.

Some of the comments suggested that the question could be improved and possibly re-opened. What changes could be made to improve the question?

marked as duplicate by indigochild, Community Sep 21 '17 at 17:04

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 2
    I would replace for example what are the moral limits to agreements? with something like what have notable libertarian thinkers written about the moral limits of agreements?. Right now it comes off a little bit like an invitation for discussion rather than a question to clarify a particular philosophy/worldview. There are a few other words/sentences that could be tweaked in a similar fashion. – user11249 Sep 21 '17 at 14:53
  • @Carpetsmoker - Explicit is better than implicit, I guess. – indigochild Sep 21 '17 at 15:13
  • 1
    I very specifically read the question as asking about ANY theories (since the rest of the wording was very generic and used terms like good/bad/moral/immoral), and not limited to very specific ones you listed. If that was incorrect, perhaps either a slight rephrasing to explicitly limit to those would be enough; or getting me new glasses. – user4012 Sep 21 '17 at 16:39
-1

This might be more of a question about law than about politics. In many jurisdictions there are laws and/or precedence cases declaring certain contract clauses invalid for moral reasons even though all parties consciously agreed to them.

You could ask questions about these laws and precedence cases in a specific jurisdiction. But such questions would belong on Law.SE.

Otherwise, you are asking about morals. But morals are subjective. If humanity could agree on one immutable set of moral values we wouldn't need politics in the first place. So any question asking "Is X moral or immoral" would be closeworthy as primarily opinion-based here. If there is a place on Stackexchange to discuss if there is such a thing as objective morality, that would be Philosophy.SE.

  • Why is this not an area where Politics.SE and Philosophy.SE overlap? We have many similar areas with other sites (Econ, Law, and History being notable examples). – indigochild Sep 21 '17 at 15:23
  • This jogged my memory though. Your answer on this meta question seemed helpful. – indigochild Sep 21 '17 at 15:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .