IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v12y2013i2p115-135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can a compromise be fair?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Jones
  • Ian O’Flynn

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between compromise and fairness, and considers in particular why, if a fair outcome to a conflict is available, the conflict should still be subject to compromise. It sets out the defining features of compromise and explains how fair compromise differs from both principled and pragmatic compromise. The fairness relating to compromise can be of two types: procedural or end-state. It is the coherence of end-state fairness with compromise that proves the more puzzling case. We offer reasons why people should be allowed to resolve conflicting or competing claims through compromise, even if compromise comes at the expense of end-state fairness, but we resist the suggestion that the primary rationale for compromise is to be found in non-ideal circumstances.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Jones & Ian O’Flynn, 2013. "Can a compromise be fair?," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 115-135, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:12:y:2013:i:2:p:115-135
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X12447773
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X12447773
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X12447773?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lea Ypi, 2010. "On the Confusion between Ideal and Non-ideal in Recent Debates on Global Justice," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58, pages 536-555, June.
    2. Colin Farrelly, 2007. "Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 844-864, December.
    3. Colin Farrelly, 2007. "Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(4), pages 844-864, December.
    4. Lea Ypi, 2010. "On the Confusion between Ideal and Non‐ideal in Recent Debates on Global Justice," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(3), pages 536-555, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Wiens, 2016. "Assessing ideal theories," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 15(2), pages 132-149, May.
    2. Christmas Billy, 2020. "The Neoliberal Turn: Libertarian Justice and Public Policy," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 26(1), pages 1-031, June.
    3. Mohammed Hossain & Yasean A. Tahat & Naser AbuGhazaleh, 2024. "Unlocking the Sustainable Workplace Equality Policy (SWEP): Evidence from an Emerging Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Naima Chahboun, 2024. "The moral benefits of coercion: A defense of ideal statism," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 23(1), pages 47-66, February.
    5. Lea Ypi, 2010. "On the Confusion between Ideal and Non‐ideal in Recent Debates on Global Justice," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(3), pages 536-555, June.
    6. Åsbjørn Melkevik, 2019. "A Theory of Business Eunomics: The Means–Ends Relation in Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 293-305, November.
    7. Roberto Veneziani & Naoki Yoshihara, 2015. "Unequal Exchange, Assets, and Power: Recent Developments in Exploitation Theory," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Constanze Binder & Giulio Codognato & Miriam Teschl & Yongsheng Xu (ed.), Individual and Collective Choice and Social Welfare, edition 127, pages 253-287, Springer.
    8. Aviezer Tucker, 2012. "Scarce justice," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(1), pages 76-96, February.
    9. Shmuel Nili, 2013. "Rigorist cosmopolitanism," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 12(3), pages 260-287, August.
    10. Brian Kogelmann, 2020. "The future of political philosophy: Non-ideal and west of babel," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 237-252, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:12:y:2013:i:2:p:115-135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.