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

See all articles by Emanuela Ceva

Emanuela Ceva

University of Pavia, Department of Political and Social Sciences

Date Written: August 15, 2009

Abstract

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

Ceva, Emanuela, Just Procedures with Controversial Outcomes. On the Grounds for Substantive Disputation within a Procedural Theory of Justice (August 15, 2009). Res Publica, 15(3), 2009: 219-235, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2354080

Emanuela Ceva (Contact Author)

University of Pavia, Department of Political and Social Sciences ( email )

Corso Strada Nuova, 65
27100 Pavia, 27100
Italy

HOME PAGE: http://www-3.unipv.it/webdsps/en/docente.php?id=ceva

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
18
Abstract Views
225
PlumX Metrics