By Christopher Lake
How may still items be disbursed in our society? a few say both, others say in response to what everyone is liable for. either rules look believable yet neither inform the total tale. the writer examines what attracts us to those principles and appears at contemporary makes an attempt by means of egalitarian thinkers to convey them jointly in one distributive perfect.
Read or Download Equality and Responsibility PDF
Similar legal theory & systems books
This booklet brings jointly the topics of gender, sexuality, violence and firms. The authors synthesize the literature and learn which has been performed in those fields and supply a coherent framework for figuring out the inter-relationship among those thoughts. the significance of violence and abuse, and especially men's violence to ladies, childrens and different males has been good proven, in particular via feminist and a few pro-feminist learn.
Tort legislations is the physique of legislation governing negligence, intentional misconduct, and different wrongful acts for which civil activities will be introduced. the traditional knowledge is that the foundations, options, and constructions of tort legislation are impartial and independent, freed from issues of gender and race. within the degree of damage, Martha Chamallas and Jennifer Wriggins turn out that tort legislations is whatever yet gender and race impartial.
Hobbes's political inspiration provokes a perennial fascination. It has develop into really famous in recent times, with the surge of scholarly curiosity evidenced by way of a couple of monographs in political concept and philosophy. whilst, there was a flip in criminal scholarship in the direction of political idea in a fashion that engages recognisably Hobbesian subject matters, for instance the connection among safety and liberty.
- Giorgio Agamben: Legal, Political and Philosophical Perspectives
- Lawmaking and Adjudication in Archaic Greece
- Legal Concepts of Childhood
Extra info for Equality and Responsibility
To this end, let me return here to what in the previous chapter I termed the responsibility principle—the principle that it is objectionable for someone to suffer a harm or loss through no fault of their own. What is objectionable about my suffering a harm or loss through no fault of my own that is not objectionable about the bare fact of my suffering a harm or loss? It is no answer to this to say that one is fair and the other unfair because that is to rehearse the concerns of the question rather than to supply an answer to it.
Nor are many drawn to the view that the absence of responsibility for a given beneﬁt necessarily diminishes that beneﬁt in the terms described. 8 In the ﬁeld of rectiﬁcatory justice, for instance, most of us are familiar with the argument that it would in some sense be counter-productive not to tie punishment to individual responsibility. The thought here is not that an individual can only deserve to be punished if he is responsible for what he has done. Instead, the thought is that it would be inefﬁcient to punish individuals where the relevant test of responsibility was not met.
Indeed, the fact that such claims address themselves to the liabilities we incur through conducting ourselves one way rather than another seems to presuppose a context of some kind, be it one of informal social norms or formal rules, privileges, and demands. My thought instead is that bare conformity with a set of rules—the sort of conformity that might arise without 30 EQUALITY AND RESPONSIBILITY reﬂection or choice—might be enough to establish my entitlement to a beneﬁt but it is not enough to establish my responsibility for it.