The Domain of Commutative Justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 28-68
Author(s):  
Carl David Mildenberger
Keyword(s):  
2006 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Odd Langholm

In a study of pre-classical monopoly theory published in 1951, Raymond de Roo ver started by briefly examining the doctrines held by the medieval scholastics. His analysis met with favorable response and was confirmed and further developed by later historians. The most satisfactory statement may still be that of Barry Gordon in his monograph on early economics. The consensus of these scholars can be summarized as follows. Medieval authors looked askance at the attempts by the guilds to establish minimum prices. They recognized the expediency of government grants of monopoly and regulation of prices of certain commodities. They strongly condemned private monopolies established for personal gain, as well as collusion among sellers for that purpose, price discrimination, engrossing, forestalling, regrating, and other forms of speculation. The just price was the current, competitive market price, free of all irregularities of these kinds and free of fraud and duress. Gordon adds that the schoolmen also sometimes referred to labor and cost factors, rather than the market, as estimates of the just price. These estimates were not necessarily contradictive but mutually supportive. They applied when the market was not working smoothly and when there was no market in operation at the time and place of the sale. When an exchange is concluded in a competitive market under normal circumstances, the going price can hardly be said to be unjust. It may sometimes seem uncharitable. There will always be some who cannot afford to pay the competitive price. Poor relief in medieval society, however, was mainly a matter of almsgiving. Unlike commutative justice, charity is not a workable ethical norm in the marketplace.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl David Mildenberger
Keyword(s):  

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-476
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Smith

In The Foundations of Private Law James Gordley argues that the modern private law in common and civil law jurisdictions is best explained on the basis of a neo-Aristotelian theory first developed by a group of 16th century Spanish thinkers known as the ‘late scholastics’. The concepts of distributive and commutative justice that, according to Gordley, lay at core of the scholastics’ theory and that explain, respectively, modern property law and the law of obligations (contract, tort, unjust enrichment), though ignored and disparaged for much of the 19th and 20th centuries, are today familiar to most private law scholars (thanks in part to Gordley’s earlier work). Yet Gordley’s understanding of these concepts and, in particular, of their relationship both to one another and to the apex idea of ‘living a distinctively human life’ is unique, setting his account apart not just from utilitarian and other ‘modern’ accounts of private law, but also from other neo-Aristotelian theories (e.g., those of Ernest Weinrib or Jules Coleman). In Gordley’s presentation, commutative (or ‘corrective’) justice is derived from distributive justice and distributive justice is derived from the idea of the distinctively human life. Confidently traversing a wide range of historical, comparative and theoretical materials, the book’s argument is at once ambitious, learned, and elegantly presented. But as a theoretical account of the foundations of the modern private law it is unpersuasive. The book’s own account of property law suggests that in practice the idea of distributive justice does little, if any, work in explaining the rules we actually have. Nor is it clear how, if at all, distributive justice flows from the allegedly foundational idea of the ’distinctively human life’. As for commutative justice, it is not clear why, if is derived from distributive justice in the way Gordley believes, the courts should care about it. Finally, but perhaps most significantly, Gordley’s conception of commutative justice is unable to account for central features of the law of obligations.


1993 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. 861
Author(s):  
Gerald J. Postema ◽  
Jules L. Coleman

Grotiana ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-22
Author(s):  
James Gordley

Abstract In Roman law, as interpreted by the medieval jurists, in a gratuitous loan (commodatum), the borrower was liable for culpa levissima, failure to use be as diligent as “most diligent” (diligentissimus). It would seem, then, that a person could be liable for conduct that he could not help. That consequence troubled the medieval canonists a person would then be liable who had not sinned. It troubled the late scholastics because a person would then be liable for an accident, which was not a violation of commutative justice. Some concluded that liability for culpa levissima was a creature of positive law, based on pragmatic considerations but with no grounding in principle. There was another explanation glimpsed by the late scholastics and by Hugo Grotius: commutative justice requires that one who borrows gratuitously indemnify the lender against any loss. Unfortunately, in the following centuries, that explanation was lost from sight.


2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 643-656
Author(s):  
Ricardo Tavares Silva

The problem of the distribution (in a broad sense) of the coronavirus vaccines – concerning the criterion by which the beneficiaries of the vaccine are selected – constitute a particular case of the general problem of the distribution of social goods. For this reason, it is necessary to discuss whether the selection criterion to be adopted is that of commutative justice or that of distributive justice and, consequently, whether the approach to the problem must follow an individualist perspective or a collectivist perspective, such as it happens regarding the general problem of the distribution of social goods. Therefore, problem of the distribution of the coronavirus vaccines is still a problem of social justice. In this essay, I will rehearse an application of each of these criteria to the problem at hand.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document