HIGHLIGHTS
SUMMARY
Estlund`s case against bent justice is therefore unlikely to move those who, like Rawls, give greater weight to the intuition that justice should serve a practical role that requires bending, and lesser weight to the conflicting intuition that justice is what it is whether realising it is compatible with existing motivational considerations or not. If the authors understand justice principles to serve a particular purpose in the theory, and they must be concessive to limits of human motivation to serve this purpose, then an argument against justice bending should include a rejection of . . .
If you want to have access to all the content you need to log in!
Thanks :)
If you don't have an account, you can create one here.