The more common kind of deontological ethics, however, says merely that the morality of actions is not entirely, or even mainly, determined by their consequences. See PETER A. ANGELES, DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY 82–83 (1981).
All the quotations in this paragraph are from IMMANUEL KANT, FOUNDATIONS OF THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS 9–10 (2d rev’d Macmillan paperback ed. 1990). The translation is by Lewis Beck White.
Adkins v. Children’s Hosp., 261 U.S. 525 (1923). The progeny are Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936); Dunham v. West-Nelson Mfg. Co., 273 U.S. 657 (1927); Murphy v. Sardell, 269 U.S. 530 (1925).
Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Indus. Relations, 262 U.S. 522 (1923) (striking down a Kansas law giving a state agency the power to fix wages within industries affected with a public interest); Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 (1924) (refusing to decide whether another provision of the act was separable from the provision struck down in Chas. Wolff); Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Indus. Relations, 267 U.S. 552 (1925) (striking down a maximum-hours provision contained in a writ of mandamus issued by the Kansas Supreme Court following Chas Wolff’s return to that court).
Williams v. Standard Oil Co., 278 U.S. 235 (1929) (retail sale of gasoline); Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U.S. 350 (1928) (employment agency fees); Tyson & Bro. v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927) (resale price of theater tickets).
270 U.S. 402 (1926) (state law forbidding the use of “shoddy” in mattresses, pillows, bolsters, featherbeds, and the like).
The clearest examples are Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Tafoya, 270 U.S. 426 (1926); and St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. Arkansas, 260 U.S. 346 (1922). Allgeyer and Cotton Compress are described in the text; Tafoya struck down a state law forbidding any registered insurance agency from paying anyone to place insurance on in-state risks, where that other entity was not authorized to do business within the state.
Cotton Compress, 260 U.S. at 348–49.
Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426, 434–39 (1917) (factory workers); Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U.S. 385, 392–94 (1915) (women); Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 379–82 (1915) (women); Hawley v. Walker, 232 U.S. 718 (1914) (women); Riley v. Massachusetts, 232 U.S. 671, 679–81 (1914) (women); Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 417–23 (1908) (women); Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 389–98 (1898) (mining employees).
Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U.S. 207, 219–24 (1903) (state law regulating wages and hours of workers employed by municipal paving contractors). See also Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175, 191–93 (1915) (state law giving citizens a preference over aliens in employment on public works); Crane v. New York, 239 U.S. 195, 198 (1915) (a companion case to Heim). Cf. Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246, 255–56 (1907) (upholding a federal statute limiting the hours worked by federal work
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Book title: The Lochner Court, Myth and Reality:Substantive Due Process from the 1890s to the 1930s.
Contributors: Michael J. Phillips - Author.
Place of publication: Westport, CT.
Publication year: 2001.
Page number: 151.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may
not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.