Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Spontaneity of Justice

The Spontaneity of Justice absolute quality. It is what we imagine will issue from an equitable solution to a dispute over the allocation of rights. In a world of scarcity, there will inevitably be conflicts over rights, and since there are as many points of view as there are people, there is nothing to insist that two conflicting sets of views will hold that the outcome of such a dispute will be "just". An extreme example will make the point obvious. The wholesale destruction currently being wreaked on people in Bosnia-Herzegovina and their property is held to be unjust by most of the civilised world --but it is plain that this is not a view held by the people doing the destroying. As soon as you have one dissenting voice over the distribution of rights, you have the possibility of conflict. That possibility -- probability, indeed -- requires a system for resolving disputes. Now, it follows from the relativity of the perception of justice that people in dispute will accept as "just" the results of arbitration only if they have previously agreed to abide by it. The alternative is that the "resolution" is forced upon them. In that event, you have not http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines de Gruyter

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/the-spontaneity-of-justice-81Y0d0prjc

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the
ISSN
2194-5799
eISSN
2153-1552
DOI
10.1515/jeeh-1993-2-305
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

absolute quality. It is what we imagine will issue from an equitable solution to a dispute over the allocation of rights. In a world of scarcity, there will inevitably be conflicts over rights, and since there are as many points of view as there are people, there is nothing to insist that two conflicting sets of views will hold that the outcome of such a dispute will be "just". An extreme example will make the point obvious. The wholesale destruction currently being wreaked on people in Bosnia-Herzegovina and their property is held to be unjust by most of the civilised world --but it is plain that this is not a view held by the people doing the destroying. As soon as you have one dissenting voice over the distribution of rights, you have the possibility of conflict. That possibility -- probability, indeed -- requires a system for resolving disputes. Now, it follows from the relativity of the perception of justice that people in dispute will accept as "just" the results of arbitration only if they have previously agreed to abide by it. The alternative is that the "resolution" is forced upon them. In that event, you have not

Journal

Journal des Économistes et des Études Humainesde Gruyter

Published: Jun 1, 1993

There are no references for this article.