Just Procedures with Controversial Outcomes. On the Grounds for Substantive Disputation within a Procedural Theory of Justice
Res Publica, 15(3), 2009: 219-235
28 Pages Posted: 14 Nov 2013
Date Written: August 15, 2009
Acts of civil disobedience and conscientious objection provide valuable indications of the congruence of political outcomes with citizens’ conceptions of justice and the good. As their primary concern is substantive, their logic seems extraneous to procedural approaches to justice. Accordingly, it has often been argued that these latter condemn citizens to a ‘deaf-and-blind’ acceptance of the outcomes of agreed procedures. A closer analysis of such acts of contestation shall reveal that although, for proceduralism, the outcomes of just procedures cannot be contested as unjust, they may be contested on the ground of values other than justice, such as someone’s religious/ethical allegiances. Proceduralism about justice will be thus shown to be consistent with the commitment to realising certain outcome-oriented values.
Keywords: civil disobedience, conscientious objection, dissent, procedural justice
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation