Abstract
Max Weber's thesis of the vital link between formal legal rationality and civilized power rests on considerations of prudence that remain compelling. Yet his resignation to injustice as part of an undifferentiated tragedy of existence goes too far in ignoring issues of social justice and democracy. This article seeks a more adequate approach by first explicating Weber's approach through his own discussion of Sancho Panza as exemplar of the hazards of substantive justice and then suggesting how to move beyond Weber's conclusions by taking up Judith Shklar's suggestions about how a democratic politics of consent and dissent can simultaneously heed injustice and maintain the rule of law.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
