Justice and Solidarity: Compound, Confound, Confuse

Main Article Content

Thomas Nys


In response to Ruud ter Meulen’s contribution, it is argued that, although the relationship between these concepts is both tight and complex, solidarity should be carefully distinguished from justice.  Although ter Meulen wants to defend a normative conception of solidarity, the relation to its descriptive component is not always very clear. As a normative concept it should not collapse into that of justice; and as a descriptive notion it is obviously defective. In order to successfully navigate between these unhappy alternatives, ter Meulen rightfully turns to critical theory. But then it is still not entirely clear how the normative considerations that ter Meulen wants to defend follow from this promising framework.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Nys, Thomas. 2015. “Justice and Solidarity: Compound, Confound, Confuse”. Diametros, no. 43 (March):72-78. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.43.2015.716.
Special Topic - Solidarity and Justice in Health Care
Author Biography

Thomas Nys, University of Amsterdam

Dr. Thomas NysCapaciteitsgroep Philosophy and Public AffairsFaculty of HumanitiesUniversity of Amsterdam Oude Turfmarkt 1431012 GC AmsterdamE-mail: T.R.V.Nys@uva.nlThomas Nys is Assistant Professor of Ethics at the University of Amsterdam. His research interests include, among others, personal and moral autonomy, the normative foundations of liberalism, trust and recognition, and the justification of paternalism in health care. He has published widely in a variety of international peer-reviewed journals, like Philosophical Explorations, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Acta Politica, and Public Health Ethics.
Share |


Meulen [2015] – R. ter Meulen, “Solidarity and Justice in Health Care. A Critical Analysis of Their Relationship,” Diametros (43) 2015, p. 1–20.
View in Google Scholar

Schokkaert [1998] – E. Schokkaert, “Warm en koud: Solidariteit en verantwoordelijkheid in de ziektverzekering,” Ethische Perspectieven 8 (3) 1998, p. 135–146.
View in Google Scholar