Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
suchaconflict.
Fourth,thedistinctionbetweentwoconceptsofformaljustice
enablesonetolocatetheruleofproportionalityandtheTalmudicrule
inthetraditionalconceptualframeworkofjustice:theyare
specificationsofconcept2offormaljustice.Withoutintroducingthe
distinctionbetweentwoconceptsofformaljustice,thestatusofthese
tworulesappearstobemysterious:neitherdotheybelongtorulesof
materialjustice(theyareessentiallydifferentfromtherulesofthe
type“toeachaccordingtoherneeds”,“toeachaccordingtoher
merits”,etc.)northeycanberegardedasvariantsofformaljustice
(concept1).
Fifth,theTalmudicruleisnotonlyaplausiblealternativetothe
ruleofproportionality,but,arguably,theonlyplausiblealternativeto
thisrule.Mostotheralternativesseempurelyhypotheticaland
implausible.Toillustratethispoint,letusconsiderthreeother
alternativestotheruleorproportionality[20]:(a)theruleofequality:
“makinganequaldivisionamongtheclaimants,irrespectiveofthe
magnitudeoftheirclaims”;(b)theruleofdefaultminimization:
“satisfyingthegreatestnumberofclaimsthatonecan”;(c)theruleof
thelargerclaimprecedence:“givinggreaterclaimsprecedenceover
smalleronesinsofaraspracticable”.Thecasebymeansofwhich
NicholasRescherillustratesthefunctioningoftheserulesisas
follows:adebtordiesleavinganestateof100unitsandfivecreditors
(A–E)whoareowed20,20,20,40,and100respectively.The
divisionsgeneratedbytheserulesaresetoutinthefollowingtable:
Proportionality
Equality
DefaultMinimization
LargerClaimPrecedence
A
10
20
20
0
B
10
20
20
0
C
10
20
20
0
D
20
20
40
0
E
50
20
0
100
Fig.2.N.Rescher’scase
RescherdidnotapplytheTalmudicruletotheabovecase.Ascan
beeasilycheckedthisruleleadsheretothesameresultastheruleof
