Moral theories of torts: Their scope and limits: Part II [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Law and Philosophy 2 (1):5 - 36 (1983)
One approach to legal theory is to provide some sort of rational reconstruction of all or of a large body of the common law. For philosophers of law this has usually meant trying to rationalize a body of law under one or another principle of justice. This paper explores the efforts of the leading tort theorists to provide a moral basis - in the sense of rational reconstruction based on alleged moral principles - for the law of torts. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part I consider and reject the view that tort law is best understood as falling either within the ambit of the principle of retributive justice, a comprehensive theory of moral responsibility, or an ideal of fairness inherent in the idea that one should impose on others only those risks others impose on one. The second part of the paper distinguishes among various conceptions of corrective or compensatory justice and considers arguments — including previous ones by the author himself — to the effect that tort law is best understood as rooted in principles of corrective justice. This paper argues that although the principles of justice may render defensible many (but by no means all) of the claims to repair and to liability recognized in torts, it cannot explain why we have adopted a tort system as the approach to vindicating those claims. Some other principle — probably not one of justice — is needed to explain why it is that the victim's claim to repair is satisfied by having his losses shifted to his injurer — rather than through some other means of doing so. The paper concludes that the law of torts cannot be understood — in the sense of being given a rational reconstruction — under any one principle of morality.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Charles Lowell Barzun (2013). Legal Rights and the Limits of Conceptual Analysis: A Case Study. Ratio Juris 26 (2):215-234.
Similar books and articles
Ernest J. Weinrib (1983). Toward a Moral Theory of Negligence Law. Law and Philosophy 2 (1):37 - 62.
Avihay Dorfman (2010). Can Tort Law Be Moral? Ratio Juris 23 (2):205-228.
Alan Strudler (1992). Mass Torts and Moral Principles. Law and Philosophy 11 (4):297 - 330.
Jules L. Coleman (1992/2002). Risks and Wrongs. Oxford University Press.
H. Sheinman (2003). Tort Law and Corrective Justice. Law and Philosophy 22 (1):21-73.
Christopher J. Robinette, Can There Be a Unified Theory of Torts? A Pluralist Suggestion From History and Doctrine.
Gerald J. Postema (ed.) (2001). Philosophy and the Law of Torts. Cambridge University Press.
John Gardner (2011). What is Tort Law For? Part 1. The Place of Corrective Justice. Law and Philosophy 30 (1):1-50.
Jules L. Coleman (1982). Moral Theories of Torts: Their Scope and Limits: Part I. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 1 (3):371 - 390.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #105,277 of 1,140,113 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #147,976 of 1,140,113 )
How can I increase my downloads?