ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Legal Theory Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Academic

: Legal Theory Blog

Sadurski on Commutative, Distributive & Procedural Justice

By Lawrence Solum

ADVERTISEMENTS

Wojciech Sadurski (University of Sydney-Faculty of Law) has posted Commutative, Distributive and Procedural Justice ? What Does it Mean, What Does it Matter? on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

    In this paper, I revisit an argument that two distinctions, traditionally drawn in a theory of justice, between commutative and distributive, and between procedural and substantive justice, are misleading, and that properly understood, "commutative justice" derives from, or is reducible to, "distributive justice", while "procedural justice" derives from, or is reducible to, "substantive justice". In reviewing these two dichotomies I consider the arguments from a duty of promise-keeping, from voluntariness, and from moral pluralism, and I contend that they are incapable of undermining the position I had originally put forward.

And from the paper:

    More specifically, the case of ?fairness?, or of pure procedural justice in gambling (i.e., the context used by Rawls to describe this form of procedural justice), seems to be a matter of combining two principles: (1) that of abiding by the publicly announced rules which determine the entitlements of the participants of the game as regards its outcomes,19 and (2) that of the freedom of individuals to engage in lawful practices, even though they may be harmful or detrimental to them. Neither of these two principles strikes me as pertaining to justice, in a substantive sense of the word. The first is reducible to a purely formal principle of ?playing by the rules?, which derives from the principle of a strict adherence to rules as they are, or even more fundamentally, of applying an equal treatment to similar cases. The second principle is that of non-paternalism: people are allowed to decide freely the degree of risk they are willing to take, and their own good is not a sufficient reason to restrict their liberty.

For my take on the question whether procedural justice is reducible to substantive justice, see Procedural Justice.

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on September 14, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 10/31/26 13:07:49)