Comments Elsewhere

Alex,

Well, my own view is that pragmatic concerns play a role in specifying the correct application of justice to cases where justice alone leaves the question vague. It’s not that they can trump the demands of justice, but rather that they offer some guidance as to what the demands of justice in a specific case are, in that subset of cases where reflection on justice alone would underdetermine the answer.

I do think that some of the emergency cases you have in mind are morally permissible — including grabbing a life-preserver without prior permission from the owner in order to save drowning stranger, or, say, breaking into an empty cabin to survive overnight during a blizzard. But I think it’s a mistake to treat these cases as cases where some other duty or right overrides the duty to respect property rights. Property rights are not simply erased by emergency conditions, but rather the application of them is altered; so, for example, it’s permissible to break into the cabin, but only if, and to the degree that, the person doing so accepts responsibility for paying compensation to the owner, for the use and for any damage inflicted, later on.