Accommodatingly Definition | Dictionary Accommodatingly Definition | Dictionary

Accommodatingly definition of justice, trends of 'accommodating'

This may in the first place depend on how we interpret utilitarianism. We treat it here as a normative theory whose aim is to supply a criterion — the greatest happiness principle — that can be used, directly or indirectly, both by individuals and by institutions such as states in deciding what to do, rather than simply as a tool for evaluating states of affairs.

But if individuals were willing to forego incentives, and so economic inequalities served no useful purpose, then the arrangement that worked to the greatest benefit of the otherwise least advantaged would be one of strict equality. So he explains our sense of justice in terms of the resentment we feel towards someone who breaches these requirements.

For example, we might have several candidates all of whom are roughly equally deserving of an academic honour, but the number of honours we are permitted to award is smaller than the number of candidates.

Thus suppose there is a feasible arrangement whereby each participant can achieve two-thirds of their maximum gain, but no arrangement under which they all do better than that, then this is the arrangement that the principle recommends. The claims of other groups must be considered too.

Who can make claims of justice, and who might have the corresponding obligation to meet them? We can learn a great deal by reading what Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Hume, has to say about the concept, but as we do so, we also see that elements we would expect to find are missing there is nothing about rights in Aristotle, for examplewhile others that we would not anticipate are present.

Principles of equality — principles requiring the equal distribution of some kind of benefit — are plainly comparative in form, since what is due to each person is simply an equal share of the benefit in question rather than any fixed amount. Donaldson, Sue and Will Kymlicka,Zoopolis: Other forms of justice — familial, allocative, associational, international — with their associated principles would be applicable in their respective domains for an even more explicitly pluralist account of justice, see Walzer ; for a fuller defence of a contextual approach to justice, see Milleresp.

If this suggestion is rejected, and we allow that some animals, at least, should be included within the scope of justice, we can then ask about the form that justice should take in their cases. It seems, then, that the value of corrective justice must lie in the principle inimigo intimo online dating each person must take responsibility for his own conduct, and if he fails to respect the legitimate interests of others by causing injury, he must make good the harm.

One reason is that the refraining is only going to have a significant effect if it is practised on a large scale, and individuals have no assurance that others will follow their example; meanwhile they or their children will lose out relative to the less scrupulous.

The conceptual distinction between distributive and corrective justice seems clear, but their normative relationship is more difficult to pin down see PerryRipsteinColemanchs. So we cannot, except metaphorically, describe as unjust states of affairs that no agent has contributed to bringing about — unless we think that there is a Divine Being who has ordered the universe in such a way that every outcome is a manifestation of His will.

This would involve using a sufficiency principle to determine what animals are owed as a matter of justice. Rawls, as we saw above, argued that economic justice meant arranging social and economic inequalities to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and in formulating the principle in this way he assumed that some inequalities might serve as incentives to greater production that would also raise the position of the worst-off group in society.

When these inequalities are governed by the difference principle, they can be justified to everyone, including the worst off, thus creating the conditions for a more stable society.

Do some principles of justice have universal scope — they apply whenever agent A acts towards recipient B, regardless of the relationship between them — while others are contextual in character, applying only within social or political relationships of a certain kind?

Corrective justice, then, essentially concerns a bilateral relationship between a wrongdoer and his victim, and demands that the fault be cancelled by restoring the victim to the position she would have been in had the wrongful behaviour not occurred; it may also require that the wrongdoer not benefit from his faulty behaviour.

Example sentences containing 'accommodating'

The agent might be an individual person, or it might be a group of people, or an institution such as the state. So it looks as though the purpose of the theory is to provide a distinctive account of moral reasoning and moral motivation but not to defend any substantive principles of distributive justice.

See Sandel for a defence of this view; for a critique, see Okin Each person can identify the outcome under which they fare best — their maximum gain — but they have no reason to expect others to accept that.

Like Rawls, Scanlon is concerned to develop an alternative to utilitarianism, and he does so by developing a test that any candidate moral principle must pass: This is of course quite abstract until further specified, but it does throw light upon four important aspects of justice.

Rawls presents the contracting parties as seeking to advance their own interests as they decide which principles to favour, but under two informational constraints. In modern debates, principles of distributive justice are applied to social institutions such as property and tax systems, which are understood as producing distributive outcomes across large societies, or even the world as a whole.

This is neither a fixed amount, nor one that depends in any direct sense on what other individuals are receiving, or should receive. In the following section, we will see how egalitarian theories of justice have tried to incorporate some desert-like elements by way of response.


Rules are assessed strictly in the light of the consequences of adopting then, not in terms of their intrinsic properties. A connected reason has to do with publicity: For instance, the procedures that together make up a fair trial are justified on the grounds that for the most part they produce outcomes in which the guilty are punished and the innocent are acquitted.

There seems then to be no coherent half-way house between accepting full-blooded desert and denying that people can justly claim relative advantage through the exercise of responsibility and choice see further Millerch. In that case, using a different procedure to produce the same result might be objectionable.

Various attempts have been made to write histories of justice that are more than just catalogues of what individual thinkers have said: Justice may still require that C be given treatment of a certain kind, but that will be justice in its non-comparative guise.

Definition of accommodatingly word

In the case of principles of desert, the position is less straightforward. This seems repugnant to justice. If A stands in a relationship of the right kind to B, then it becomes a matter of justice how A is treated relative to B, but it does not matter in the same way how A is treated relative to C who stands outside of the relationship.

The thought is that showing persons equal respect may sometimes require us to afford them equal treatment, even in the face of relevant grounds for discrimination.

But these are rare exceptions.

Accommodatingly | Definition of accommodatingly in English by Oxford Dictionaries

So in order to show how agreement could be achieved, contractarians have to model the contracting parties in a particular way, either by limiting what they are allowed to know about themselves or about the future, or by attributing to them certain motivations while excluding others.

In these circumstances, it is natural to look for an overarching framework into which the various contextually specific conceptions of justice can all be fitted. Distributive justice, on the other hand, is multilateral: Justice here requires that the resources available to the distributor be shared according to some relevant criterion, such as equality, desert, or need.

Bentham, in contrast, was more cavalier: Attending to the scope, as well as the content, of justice is important. Might individuals whose talents can bring them high rewards in the labour market have a duty not to make use of their bargaining power, but instead be willing to work for a fair wage — which if fairness is understood in egalitarian terms might mean the same wage as everyone else perhaps with extra compensation for those whose labour is unusually burdensome?

Definition of accommodatingly | Bee Dictionary of English

How could egalitarian justice be made more robust? Justice takes a non-comparative form when we can determine what is due to a person merely by knowing relevant facts about that particular person: As this article will endeavour to show, justice takes on different meanings in different practical contexts, and to understand it fully we have to grapple with this diversity.

But justice, although not always backward-looking in the sense explained, often is. Utilitarians will therefore find it hard to explain what from their point of view seems to be the fetishistic concern of justice over how the means to happiness are distributed, rather than happiness itself.