Property and justice

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

When were trying to articulate principles of justice that we have reason to take seriously in a world like ours, one way to start is with an understanding of what our world is like, and of which institutional frameworks promote our thriving in communities and which do not. If we start this way, we can sort out alleged principles of justice by asking which ones license mutual expectations that promote our thriving and which ones do otherwise. This is an essay in the how and why of nonideal theory: in particular, how and why principles of property come first and principles of justice second. Ownership conventions, and property law as it develops under the pressures of case by case dispute resolution, tend to become touchstones for conflict mediation down through generations. They may be imperfect, retaining vestiges of adaptations to ancient problems that no longer exist, yet still they work, coordinating expectations so as to make it easier for people to live well together. A priori reasons for endorsing principles of justice generally are not good enough. A good enough reason would be something like this: to endorse this way of applying this principle in this kind of circumstance is to support institutional frameworks that position us to play positive sum games.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)79-100
Number of pages22
JournalSocial Philosophy and Policy
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2010

Fingerprint

justice
conflict mediation
license
Law
Justice
community

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Property and justice. / Schmidtz, David J.

In: Social Philosophy and Policy, Vol. 27, No. 1, 01.2010, p. 79-100.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schmidtz, David J. / Property and justice. In: Social Philosophy and Policy. 2010 ; Vol. 27, No. 1. pp. 79-100.
@article{2a8191c5ecdd43b2b8380dab513909b4,
title = "Property and justice",
abstract = "When were trying to articulate principles of justice that we have reason to take seriously in a world like ours, one way to start is with an understanding of what our world is like, and of which institutional frameworks promote our thriving in communities and which do not. If we start this way, we can sort out alleged principles of justice by asking which ones license mutual expectations that promote our thriving and which ones do otherwise. This is an essay in the how and why of nonideal theory: in particular, how and why principles of property come first and principles of justice second. Ownership conventions, and property law as it develops under the pressures of case by case dispute resolution, tend to become touchstones for conflict mediation down through generations. They may be imperfect, retaining vestiges of adaptations to ancient problems that no longer exist, yet still they work, coordinating expectations so as to make it easier for people to live well together. A priori reasons for endorsing principles of justice generally are not good enough. A good enough reason would be something like this: to endorse this way of applying this principle in this kind of circumstance is to support institutional frameworks that position us to play positive sum games.",
author = "Schmidtz, {David J}",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0265052509990045",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "79--100",
journal = "Social Philosophy and Policy",
issn = "0265-0525",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Property and justice

AU - Schmidtz, David J

PY - 2010/1

Y1 - 2010/1

N2 - When were trying to articulate principles of justice that we have reason to take seriously in a world like ours, one way to start is with an understanding of what our world is like, and of which institutional frameworks promote our thriving in communities and which do not. If we start this way, we can sort out alleged principles of justice by asking which ones license mutual expectations that promote our thriving and which ones do otherwise. This is an essay in the how and why of nonideal theory: in particular, how and why principles of property come first and principles of justice second. Ownership conventions, and property law as it develops under the pressures of case by case dispute resolution, tend to become touchstones for conflict mediation down through generations. They may be imperfect, retaining vestiges of adaptations to ancient problems that no longer exist, yet still they work, coordinating expectations so as to make it easier for people to live well together. A priori reasons for endorsing principles of justice generally are not good enough. A good enough reason would be something like this: to endorse this way of applying this principle in this kind of circumstance is to support institutional frameworks that position us to play positive sum games.

AB - When were trying to articulate principles of justice that we have reason to take seriously in a world like ours, one way to start is with an understanding of what our world is like, and of which institutional frameworks promote our thriving in communities and which do not. If we start this way, we can sort out alleged principles of justice by asking which ones license mutual expectations that promote our thriving and which ones do otherwise. This is an essay in the how and why of nonideal theory: in particular, how and why principles of property come first and principles of justice second. Ownership conventions, and property law as it develops under the pressures of case by case dispute resolution, tend to become touchstones for conflict mediation down through generations. They may be imperfect, retaining vestiges of adaptations to ancient problems that no longer exist, yet still they work, coordinating expectations so as to make it easier for people to live well together. A priori reasons for endorsing principles of justice generally are not good enough. A good enough reason would be something like this: to endorse this way of applying this principle in this kind of circumstance is to support institutional frameworks that position us to play positive sum games.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952637110&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952637110&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0265052509990045

DO - 10.1017/S0265052509990045

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77952637110

VL - 27

SP - 79

EP - 100

JO - Social Philosophy and Policy

JF - Social Philosophy and Policy

SN - 0265-0525

IS - 1

ER -