文档介绍：Fordham University
School of Law

Research Paper 49

June 2004

The Philosophy of Tort Law:
Between the Esoteric and the Banal

Benjamin Zipursky
Professor of Law

(ing in BLACKWELL GUIDE TO PHILOSOPHY OF LAW AND LEGAL
THEORY, Martin Golding & William Edmundson, eds. 2004)

This paper can be downloaded without charge
from the Social Science work electronic library:
/abstract=555705
Philosophy of Tort Law: Between the Esoteric and the Banal
Benjamin C. Zipursky
Professor of Law
Fordham University
[ing in BLACKWELL GUIDE TO PHILOSOPHY OF LAW AND LEGAL THEORY,
Martin Golding & William Edmundson, eds. 2004)]
The string of words, “Philosophy of tort law” may seem like a random conjunction of academic
topic nouns selected from columns in a word game. If the phrase has ical ring, it is because tort
law is among the most practical and least high-falutin’ areas of law. Tort law deals with car accidents,
medical malpractice, and defective lawn mowers, matters seemingly far from the celestial concerns of
the philosopher. And so, like the lobster ice cream sold in a sea-faring tourist town, the existence of
philosophy of tort law as a subject may seem to be proof that people will swallow just about anything
that can be served up.
The decision to write this chapter indicates that I do not share the perspective articulated above.
And yet the question raised -- “Is philosophy of tort law intellectually unmotivated?”-- provides a
valuable backdrop for thinking about the topic. I shall suggest in what follows that the subject actually
covers a number of different kinds of inquiry, each kind motivated by a set of practical or intellectual
concerns. By probing these diverse motivations we will not only address the reasons why there is such
a subject (philosophy of tort law), we will also get a better sense of the substance of ongoing debates
within