Justice as mutual advantage and the vulnerable

Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (2):119-147 (2011)

Authors
Abstract
Since at least as long ago as Plato’s time, philosophers have considered the possibility that justice is at bottom a system of rules that members of society follow for mutual advantage. Some maintain that justice as mutual advantage is a fatally flawed theory of justice because it is too exclusive. Proponents of a Vulnerability Objection argue that justice as mutual advantage would deny the most vulnerable members of society any of the protections and other benefits of justice. I argue that the Vulnerability Objection presupposes that in a justice-as-mutual-advantage society only those who can and do contribute to the cooperative surplus of benefits that compliance with justice creates are owed any share of these benefits. I argue that justice as mutual advantage need not include such a Contribution Requirement. I show by example that a justice-as-mutual-advantage society can extend the benefits of justice to all its members, including the vulnerable who cannot contribute. I close by arguing that if one does not presuppose a Contribution Requirement, then a justice-as-mutual-advantage society might require its members to extend the benefits of justice to humans that some maintain are not persons (for example, embryos) and to certain nonhuman creatures. I conclude that the real problem for defenders of justice as mutual advantage is that this theory of justice threatens to be too inclusive
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1177/1470594X10386566
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 44,365
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals.David Hume & Tom L. Beauchamp - 1998 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 190 (2):230-231.
Abortion and Infanticide.Michael Tooley - 1972 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1):37-65.
Justice as Impartiality.Brian Barry - 1995 - Philosophy 70 (274):603-605.
Convention: A Philosophical Study.David K. Lewis - 1971 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 4 (2):137-138.
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.John von Neumann & Oskar Morgenstern - 1945 - Journal of Philosophy 42 (20):550-554.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Justification, Coercion, and the Place of Public Reason.Chad Van Schoelandt - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (4):1031-1050.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Hume and Mutual Advantage.J. Salter - 2012 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (3):302-321.
Theories of Intergenerational Justice: A Synopsis.Axel Gosseries - 2008 - Surv. Perspect. Integr. Environ. Soc 1:39-49.
Contractarianism and Cooperation.Cynthia A. Stark - 2009 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (1):73-99.
Clubbish Justice.Robert E. Goodin - 2008 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (2):233-237.
A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Justice as Mutual Advantage.Wojciech Załuski - 2011 - In Jerzy Stelmach & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Game Theory and the Law. Copernicus Center Press.
Why the West Is Perceived as Being Unworthy of Cooperation.Gorik Ooms - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (3):594-613.
Global Migratory Potential and the Scope of Justice.Richard Child - 2011 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (3):282-300.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-02-23

Total views
97 ( #84,677 of 2,271,738 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #564,635 of 2,271,738 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature