Illegality, Metaorders and Metapreferences

This paper parts from the work developed by Sen about metaorders and metapreferences to explain illegality as a rational problem. After showing the scope of this categories, the author exposes some limits of the benefit cost analysis of illegality. He continues suggesting that the concept of metapreferences contributes to understanding the fuzzy space that exists between legal and illegal frontiers, and between legitimacy and illegitimacy. Gonzalez point out the necessity of a more detailed analysis of the way in which beliefs and desires shape individual and social preferences, if we don't want to fall in simplistic explanations of illegality based on an arbitrary criteria of the good. He concludes too that the inconsistency of metapreferences can explain why more expenditures in security and justice don't result in a reduction of impunity