Equality, Responsibility, and the Law

Equality, Responsibility, and the Law

By (author) Arthur Ripstein , Series edited by Gerald J. Postema , Series edited by Jules L. Coleman , Series edited by Antony Duff , Series edited by David Lyons , Series edited by Neil MacCormick , Series edited by Stephen R. Munzer , Series edited by Philip Pettit , Series edited by Joseph Raz , Series edited by Jeremy Waldron


Free delivery worldwide

Dispatched in 3 business days

When will my order arrive?

This book examines responsibility and luck as these issues arise in tort law, criminal law, and distributive justice. The central question is: whose bad luck is a particular piece of misfortune? Arthur Ripstein argues that there is a general set of principles to be found that clarifies responsibility in those cases where luck is most obviously an issue: accidents, mistakes, emergencies, and failed attempts at crime. In revealing how the problems that arise in tort and criminal law as well as distributive justice invite structurally parallel solutions, the author also shows the deep connection between individual responsibility and social equality. This is a challenging and provocative book that will be of special interest to moral and political philosophers, legal theorists, and political scientists.

show more
  • Hardback | 320 pages
  • 161 x 236.7 x 22.4mm | 603.29g
  • 26 Nov 2004
  • Cambridge
  • English
  • New.
  • black & white illustrations
  • 0521584523
  • 9780521584524

Other books in this category

Other people who viewed this bought:

Review quote

'Sketching the raw materials of Ripstein's argument cannot do justice to the detail and thoroughness of his treatment of tort and criminal law doctrine. He seeks to demonstrate the various ways in which doctrine incorporates and responds to the related notions of fair terms of interaction and the unreasonable imposition of risk. This close engagement with doctrine sets the book apart from much philosophical work in this area and illustrates the value of work that is both legally and philosophically agreed. Only the most intellectually incurious could read it without profit.' The Modern Law Review

show more