Abstract
This paper places Weale’s theory in its historical context, clarifying the dispute between Brian Barry’s justice as impartiality and David Gauthier’s justice as mutual advantage. Contra Weale, who argues that justice can involve both mutual advantage and impartiality, this paper suggests that impartiality and mutual advantage are incompatible, and that Barry’s position is preferable to Gauthier’s. Three specific issues will be addressed: First, Weale’s theory of democratic justice includes an account of injustice which is unpersuasive. Secondly, deliberative democracy does not only require equality of power, as Weale suggests, but also material (economic) equality. Thirdly, Weale’s claim that workers should be allowed to keep the full fruits of their labour is questionable.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 222-230 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 4 Mar 2017 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- Brian Barry
- David Gauthier
- impartiality
- injustice
- mutual advantage
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Democratic justice and contractarian injustice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver