Sources & Extracts

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to go back to the page you were on.

Here are some introductory comments on compensation by the philosopher Alan Goldman, taken from his book Justice and Reverse Discrimination. Goldman discusses what he calls the "paradigm case," which is roughly the ideal case in which we all agree that compensation is owed. Other cases, of course, depart more or less from the paradigm. He writes as follows:

The principle of compensation that governs paradigm cases in which compensation is owed is: An individual harmed in violation of his rights should be restored by the perpetrator of the injury to the position he would have occupied, had the injury not occurred. . . .

The paradigm case to which the principle of compensation applies involves an intentional infliction of injury in violation of right, resulting in a measurable loss to the victim and benefit to the specifiable perpetrator. In this case it is clear that the guilty party ought to restore his ill-gotten benefit to the victim, plus any accruals to the original amount that might have occurred in the interim. . . .

Deviations from this paradigm situation include the following cases. There may be no intent to harm, but merely negligence on the part of the individual at fault; or there may be no fault at all, the injury of one party by the other being the result of purely accidental and unforeseeable circumstances. It may be difficult to measure the loss; or losses to certain individuals may be indirect, via violation of the rights of others. There may be no benefit accruing to the injuring party; or it may be impossible for him to pay compensation or even to be located, as in most criminal cases. In clarifying the problem of those who deserve and those who are liable for the burdens of reverse discrimination, it will be necessary to consider some of these deviations and their implications regarding the application of the principle; we rarely deal with paradigm cases of injustice and liability in this area, which is one reason why it is such a thorny issue from the point of view of justice.

Reference: Alan Goldman, Justice and Reverse Discrimination , p 67-68.