{"title":"平等主义规范的逻辑","authors":"K. Simons","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.211648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"The Logic of Egalitarian Norms\" was prompted by a recent article by Christopher J. Peters, \"Equality Revisited,\" 110 Harv. L. Rev. 1210 (1997), arguing that the concept of equality is self-contradictory and sometimes leads to absurd results, such as the multiplication of wrongs or wasteful \"leveling down\" of social benefits. Peters' view is shared by other recent skeptical commentators who question the value of egalitarian norms or who worry that such norms are often misleading. The article defends egalitarian logic against such skepticism in a wide variety of legal domains.","PeriodicalId":47323,"journal":{"name":"Boston University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"1999-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Logic of Egalitarian Norms\",\"authors\":\"K. Simons\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.211648\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\\"The Logic of Egalitarian Norms\\\" was prompted by a recent article by Christopher J. Peters, \\\"Equality Revisited,\\\" 110 Harv. L. Rev. 1210 (1997), arguing that the concept of equality is self-contradictory and sometimes leads to absurd results, such as the multiplication of wrongs or wasteful \\\"leveling down\\\" of social benefits. Peters' view is shared by other recent skeptical commentators who question the value of egalitarian norms or who worry that such norms are often misleading. The article defends egalitarian logic against such skepticism in a wide variety of legal domains.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Boston University Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Boston University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.211648\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Boston University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.211648","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
"The Logic of Egalitarian Norms" was prompted by a recent article by Christopher J. Peters, "Equality Revisited," 110 Harv. L. Rev. 1210 (1997), arguing that the concept of equality is self-contradictory and sometimes leads to absurd results, such as the multiplication of wrongs or wasteful "leveling down" of social benefits. Peters' view is shared by other recent skeptical commentators who question the value of egalitarian norms or who worry that such norms are often misleading. The article defends egalitarian logic against such skepticism in a wide variety of legal domains.
期刊介绍：
The Boston University Law Review provides analysis and commentary on all areas of the law. Published six times a year, the Law Review contains articles contributed by law professors and practicing attorneys from all over the world, along with notes written by student members.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
