In this Essay I want to explore the disputed "equation" between bodily integrity and money. I am writing about meaning-the way human interactions are understood by a community sharing a concept in practice. The concept in practice I focus on is compensation, in particular compensation for personal injury. Of course, compensation remedies are pervasive in law, so the investigation I offer here is just a first look at a piece of the picture. I will suggest that our legal practice reflects conflict in how compensation for personal injury is understood-that compensation is a contested concept. A commodified conception of compensation, in which harm to persons can be equated with a dollar value, coexists with a noncommodified conception, in which harm cannot be equated with dollars. In the commodified conception, harm and dollars are commensurable, and in the noncommodified conception, they are incommensurable. After describing the significance of commensurability as a philosophical issue, I will go on to suggest that once we understand the relationship of commensurability to the issue of what compensation means, we will be in a better position to understand the contemporary debate about whether the tort system should compensate for "nonpecuniary" harms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.