Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 13 - Engaging Immanuel Kant and Ernst Tugendhat

  • from Part III - The Grounds of Justice
  • Mathias Risse
  • Book:
    On Justice
    Published online:
    18 September 2020
    Print publication:
    10 September 2020, pp 269-283

  • Summary

    Influential alternative accounts conceive of justice either as broadly applicable but not as stringent as I do or as similarly stringent but not as broadly applicable as I do. Ernst Tugendhat exemplifies the former approach, Immanuel Kant the latter. Their approaches generate an objection to mine: either distributive justice can be defined, as Tugendhat does, in terms of the kind of situation to which it applies and then plausibly applied to a broader range of contexts than my theory proposes, or distributive justice can be defined in terms of its stringency, as Kant does. I argue that it is sensible to limit justice to a narrower range of situations than Tugendhat allows, while thinking of the stringency of justice in such a way that a broader class of cases is covered than Kant allows. This takes us to something like my view.