Natural Law, Basic Goods, and Fiduciary Altruism
Even though fiduciary duties take the highest position in the spectrum of legal altruism, and legal fiduciary altruism sometimes differs from moral fiduciary altruism, natural law morality is not necessarily useless in helping to explain, determine, and justify concrete rules in fiduciary law. Five...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Frontiers of law in China 2020-12, Vol.15 (4), p.431-451 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 451 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 431 |
container_title | Frontiers of law in China |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Zhicheng, Wu |
description | Even though fiduciary duties take the highest position in the spectrum of legal altruism, and legal fiduciary altruism sometimes differs from moral fiduciary altruism, natural law morality is not necessarily useless in helping to explain, determine, and justify concrete rules in fiduciary law. Five specific inspirations, in addition to divergences, can be drawn by a closer look at the seven basic goods of John Finnis’ natural law theory. First, the basic good of life may help to determine the boundary of the best interest test under the duty of loyalty. Second, the basic good of play, in particular the distinction between business community and play community may help to justify the separate treatment between civil agency and commercial agency regarding the unconditional power of immediate termination. Third, practical reasonableness may help to explain the rule against set-off under the duty of no conflict. Fourth, different cultural notions of sociability may lead to distinct understandings with regard to the no-profit rule. Fifth, different attitudes towards knowledge in various religious beliefs may create distinct understandings about the burden of informed consent. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3868/s050-009-020-0025-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2481904276</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A733160585</galeid><sourcerecordid>A733160585</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g273t-97a3f2c4d1090b7f047688158bbb9ff27c0faca5dfa694125cdfcbb30e1470e43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kEtLw0AUhQdRsFZ_gZuA26beeWUm7mqxVSi60fUwmUc7JU3qTIL475tQXZ3D5Zxz4UPoHsOcykI-JuCQA5Q5kFEJz-kFmuBC0Jxyhi__PSPyGt2ktAfguOByguBdd33UdbbRP7PsWadgsnXb2jTLdGOzVbC9CTr-Zou6i31Ih1t05XWd3N2fTtHX6uVz-ZpvPtZvy8Um3xJBu7wUmnpimMVQQiU8MFFIibmsqqr0nggDXhvNrddFyTDhxnpTVRQcZgIco1P0cN49xva7d6lT-7aPzfBSESZxCYyIYkjNz6mtrp0KjW-7OMwabd0hmLZxPgz3haAUF8AlHwpP58IubHcuOnuMLiXlY9t0wcWkMKgRqRqRqgGpGpCqEami9AQSTWfU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2481904276</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Natural Law, Basic Goods, and Fiduciary Altruism</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Zhicheng, Wu</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhicheng, Wu</creatorcontrib><description>Even though fiduciary duties take the highest position in the spectrum of legal altruism, and legal fiduciary altruism sometimes differs from moral fiduciary altruism, natural law morality is not necessarily useless in helping to explain, determine, and justify concrete rules in fiduciary law. Five specific inspirations, in addition to divergences, can be drawn by a closer look at the seven basic goods of John Finnis’ natural law theory. First, the basic good of life may help to determine the boundary of the best interest test under the duty of loyalty. Second, the basic good of play, in particular the distinction between business community and play community may help to justify the separate treatment between civil agency and commercial agency regarding the unconditional power of immediate termination. Third, practical reasonableness may help to explain the rule against set-off under the duty of no conflict. Fourth, different cultural notions of sociability may lead to distinct understandings with regard to the no-profit rule. Fifth, different attitudes towards knowledge in various religious beliefs may create distinct understandings about the burden of informed consent.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1673-3428</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1673-3541</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3868/s050-009-020-0025-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Beijing: Higher Education Press</publisher><subject>Altruism ; basic goods ; Book publishing ; Ethical aspects ; Fiduciaries ; Fiduciary duties ; Morality ; Natural law ; Officials and employees</subject><ispartof>Frontiers of law in China, 2020-12, Vol.15 (4), p.431-451</ispartof><rights>Copyright reserved, 2020, Higher Education Press</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Higher Education Press Limited Company</rights><rights>Copyright Higher Education Press Limited Company Dec 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhicheng, Wu</creatorcontrib><title>Natural Law, Basic Goods, and Fiduciary Altruism</title><title>Frontiers of law in China</title><addtitle>Front. Law China</addtitle><description>Even though fiduciary duties take the highest position in the spectrum of legal altruism, and legal fiduciary altruism sometimes differs from moral fiduciary altruism, natural law morality is not necessarily useless in helping to explain, determine, and justify concrete rules in fiduciary law. Five specific inspirations, in addition to divergences, can be drawn by a closer look at the seven basic goods of John Finnis’ natural law theory. First, the basic good of life may help to determine the boundary of the best interest test under the duty of loyalty. Second, the basic good of play, in particular the distinction between business community and play community may help to justify the separate treatment between civil agency and commercial agency regarding the unconditional power of immediate termination. Third, practical reasonableness may help to explain the rule against set-off under the duty of no conflict. Fourth, different cultural notions of sociability may lead to distinct understandings with regard to the no-profit rule. Fifth, different attitudes towards knowledge in various religious beliefs may create distinct understandings about the burden of informed consent.</description><subject>Altruism</subject><subject>basic goods</subject><subject>Book publishing</subject><subject>Ethical aspects</subject><subject>Fiduciaries</subject><subject>Fiduciary duties</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Natural law</subject><subject>Officials and employees</subject><issn>1673-3428</issn><issn>1673-3541</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kEtLw0AUhQdRsFZ_gZuA26beeWUm7mqxVSi60fUwmUc7JU3qTIL475tQXZ3D5Zxz4UPoHsOcykI-JuCQA5Q5kFEJz-kFmuBC0Jxyhi__PSPyGt2ktAfguOByguBdd33UdbbRP7PsWadgsnXb2jTLdGOzVbC9CTr-Zou6i31Ih1t05XWd3N2fTtHX6uVz-ZpvPtZvy8Um3xJBu7wUmnpimMVQQiU8MFFIibmsqqr0nggDXhvNrddFyTDhxnpTVRQcZgIco1P0cN49xva7d6lT-7aPzfBSESZxCYyIYkjNz6mtrp0KjW-7OMwabd0hmLZxPgz3haAUF8AlHwpP58IubHcuOnuMLiXlY9t0wcWkMKgRqRqRqgGpGpCqEami9AQSTWfU</recordid><startdate>20201201</startdate><enddate>20201201</enddate><creator>Zhicheng, Wu</creator><general>Higher Education Press</general><general>Higher Education Press Limited Company</general><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201201</creationdate><title>Natural Law, Basic Goods, and Fiduciary Altruism</title><author>Zhicheng, Wu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g273t-97a3f2c4d1090b7f047688158bbb9ff27c0faca5dfa694125cdfcbb30e1470e43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Altruism</topic><topic>basic goods</topic><topic>Book publishing</topic><topic>Ethical aspects</topic><topic>Fiduciaries</topic><topic>Fiduciary duties</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Natural law</topic><topic>Officials and employees</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhicheng, Wu</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Frontiers of law in China</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhicheng, Wu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Natural Law, Basic Goods, and Fiduciary Altruism</atitle><jtitle>Frontiers of law in China</jtitle><stitle>Front. Law China</stitle><date>2020-12-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>431</spage><epage>451</epage><pages>431-451</pages><issn>1673-3428</issn><eissn>1673-3541</eissn><abstract>Even though fiduciary duties take the highest position in the spectrum of legal altruism, and legal fiduciary altruism sometimes differs from moral fiduciary altruism, natural law morality is not necessarily useless in helping to explain, determine, and justify concrete rules in fiduciary law. Five specific inspirations, in addition to divergences, can be drawn by a closer look at the seven basic goods of John Finnis’ natural law theory. First, the basic good of life may help to determine the boundary of the best interest test under the duty of loyalty. Second, the basic good of play, in particular the distinction between business community and play community may help to justify the separate treatment between civil agency and commercial agency regarding the unconditional power of immediate termination. Third, practical reasonableness may help to explain the rule against set-off under the duty of no conflict. Fourth, different cultural notions of sociability may lead to distinct understandings with regard to the no-profit rule. Fifth, different attitudes towards knowledge in various religious beliefs may create distinct understandings about the burden of informed consent.</abstract><cop>Beijing</cop><pub>Higher Education Press</pub><doi>10.3868/s050-009-020-0025-3</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1673-3428 |
ispartof | Frontiers of law in China, 2020-12, Vol.15 (4), p.431-451 |
issn | 1673-3428 1673-3541 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2481904276 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Altruism basic goods Book publishing Ethical aspects Fiduciaries Fiduciary duties Morality Natural law Officials and employees |
title | Natural Law, Basic Goods, and Fiduciary Altruism |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T14%3A57%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Natural%20Law,%20Basic%20Goods,%20and%20Fiduciary%20Altruism&rft.jtitle=Frontiers%20of%20law%20in%20China&rft.au=Zhicheng,%20Wu&rft.date=2020-12-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=431&rft.epage=451&rft.pages=431-451&rft.issn=1673-3428&rft.eissn=1673-3541&rft_id=info:doi/10.3868/s050-009-020-0025-3&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA733160585%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2481904276&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A733160585&rfr_iscdi=true |