Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. If You Polluted, You’re Included: The All-Affected Principle and Carbon Tax Referendums.David Matias Paaske & Jakob Thrane Mainz - forthcoming - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
    In this paper, we argue that the All Affected Principle generates a puzzle when applied to carbon tax referendums. According to recent versions of the All Affected Principle, people should have a say in a democratic decision in positive proportion to how much the decision affects them. Plausibly, one way of being affected by a carbon tax referendum is to bear the economic burden of paying the tax. On this metric of affectedness, then, people who pollute a lot are ceteris (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Environmental Activism and the Fairness of Costs Argument for Uncivil Disobedience.Ten-Herng Lai & Chong-Ming Lim - 2023 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 9 (3):490-509.
    Social movements often impose nontrivial costs on others against their wills. Civil disobedience is no exception. How can social movements in general, and civil disobedience in particular, be justifiable despite this apparent wrong-making feature? We examine an intuitively plausible account—it is fair that everyone should bear the burdens of tackling injustice. We extend this fairness-based argument for civil disobedience to defend some acts of uncivil disobedience. Focusing on uncivil environmental activism—such as ecotage (sabotage with the aim of protecting the environment)—we (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Wrongful Observation.Helen Frowe & Jonathan Parry - 2019 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 47 (1):104-137.
    According to common-sense morality, agents can become morally connected to the wrongdoing of others, such that they incur special obligations to prevent or rectify the wrongs committed by the primary wrongdoer. We argue that, under certain conditions, voluntary and unjustified observation of another agent’s degrading wrongdoing, or of the ‘product’ of their wrongdoing, can render an agent morally liable to bear costs for the sake of the victim of the primary wrong. We develop our account with particular reference to widespread (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Global Gender Justice and The Feminization of Responsibility.Serene J. Khader - 2019 - Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 5 (2).
    This paper morally evaluates the phenomenon Sylvia Chant calls "the feminization of responsibility," wherein women's unrecognized labor subsidizes international development while men retain or increase their power over women. I argue that development policies that feminize responsibility are incompatible with justice in two ways. First, such policies involve Northerners extracting unpaid labor from women in the global South. Northerners are obligated to provide development assistance, but they are transferring the labor of providing it onto women in the global South and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Moral vegetarianism.Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • What is the Wrong in Retaining Benefits from Wrongdoing? How Recent Attempts to Formulate a Plausible Rationale for the ‘Beneficiary Pays Principle’ Have Failed.Sigurd Lindstad - 2020 - Res Publica 26 (1):25-43.
    Many moral and political theorists have recently argued that the fact that an agent has innocently benefited from wrongdoing or injustice can ground special moral duties to help out the victims or simply give up the benefits. This idea is often referred to as the ‘Beneficiary Pays Principle’. This article critically assesses three recent attempts at providing a rationale for the BPP and argues that there are profound problems with each of them. It argues that even if we accept plausible (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • (1 other version)Food Ethics II: Consumption and obesity.Anne Barnhill & Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Philosophy Compass 13 (3):e12479.
    This article surveys recent work on some issues in the ethics of food consumption. It is a companion to our piece on food justice and the ethics of food production.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Is It Wrong to Benefit from Injustice?Katerina Psaroudaki - 2024 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 11 (2):397-418.
    According to the beneficiary-pays principle, the involuntary beneficiaries of injustice ought to disgorge their unjustly obtained benefits in order to compensate the victims of injustice. The paper explores the effectiveness of the above principle in establishing a robust and unique normative connection between the rectificatory duties of the beneficiaries and the rectificatory rights of the victims of injustice. I discuss three accounts of the beneficiary-pays principle according to which the rectificatory duty of the beneficiaries towards the victims is grounded in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Dos principios retrospectivos de justicia climática.Iñigo González Ricoy - 2019 - Isegoría 61:623-640.
    The paper examines two backward-looking principles about how the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change should be distributed. According to the polluter pays principle, such costs should be borne by those who caused climate change. According to the beneficiary pays principle, they should be borne by those who have benefited from the activities causing climate change, regardless of whether they took part in such activities or not. The paper unpacks both principles, considers their main problems and contends that, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What Second-Best Scenarios Reveal about Ideals of Global Justice.Christian Barry & David Wiens - 2020 - In Thom Brooks (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
    While there need be no conflict in theory between addressing global inequality (inequalities between people worldwide) and addressing domestic inequality (inequalities between people within a political community), there may be instances in which the feasible mechanism for reducing global inequality risks aggravating domestic inequality. The burgeoning literature on global justice has tended to overlook this type of scenario, and theorists espousing global egalitarianism have consequently not engaged with cases that are important for evaluating and clarifying the content of their theories. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Correcting unjust enrichment: explaining and defending the duty to disgorge the benefits of wrongdoing.Edward A. Page & Göran Duus-Otterström - forthcoming - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
    Agents sometimes innocently benefit from the wrongdoing perpetrated by others. It has been asserted that when this happens the beneficiary acquires a defeasible duty to disgorge these benefits until the beneficiary’s gain is extinguished or the victim’s loss has been reversed. At the same time, critics have denied the existence of duties of disgorgement. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by proposing a novel account of the underlying justification, or rationale, for disgorgement duties grounded in the value of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Intending to benefit from wrongdoing.Robert E. Goodin & Avia Pasternak - 2016 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 15 (3):280-297.
    Some believe that the mere beneficiaries of wrongdoing of others ought to disgorge their tainted benefits. Others deny that claim. Both sides of this debate concentrate on unavoidable beneficiaries of the wrongdoing of others, who are presumed themselves to be innocent by virtue of the fact they have neither contributed to the wrong nor could they have avoided receiving the benefit. But as we show, this presumption is mistaken for unavoidable beneficiaries who intend in certain ways to benefit from wrongdoing, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Benefits of Injustice and Its Correction: A Challenge to the Duty Not to Benefit Innocently from Injustice.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2021 - Wiley: Journal of Political Philosophy 30 (3):395-408.
    Journal of Political Philosophy, Volume 30, Issue 3, Page 395-408, September 2022.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • May states select among refugees?Max Gabriel Cherem - 2020 - Ethics and Global Politics 13 (1):33-49.
    The way that the questions of our symposium are framed causes me some concern. At a general level this is for three reasons. First there is a principle of statutory interpretation – Expressio unius...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Being Realistic about International Trade Justice.Christian Neuhäuser - 2018 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 5 (2):181-204.
    The current philosophical debate on just international trade has moved away from purely idealistic theorizing into the direction of non-ideal theory. At the same time most philosophical thought on just trade is still rather idealistic and the main argument of the paper is that some philosophical reasoning about international trade justice should be more realistic. The paper develops in three steps. In a first step I will give a short overview over normative questions that arise with respect to international trade. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Profiting from poverty.Ole Koksvik & Gerhard Øverland - 2019 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 49 (3):341-367.
    ABSTRACTWe consider whether and under what conditions it is morally illicit to profit from poverty. We argue that when profit counterfactually depends on poverty, the agent making the profit is morally obliged to relinquish it. Finally, we argue that the people to whom the profit should be redirected are those on whom it counterfactually depends.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Carbon Sink Conservation and Global Justice: Benefitting, Free Riding and Non-compliance.Fabian Schuppert - 2016 - Res Publica 22 (1):99-116.
    It is often assumed that in order to avoid the most severe consequences of global anthropogenic climate change we have to preserve our existing carbon sinks, such as for instance tropical forests. Global carbon sink conservation raises a host of normative issues, though, since it is debatable who should pay the costs of carbon sink conservation, who has the duty to protect which sinks, and how far the duty to conserve one’s carbon sinks actually extends, especially if it conflicts with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Beneficiary Pays Principle and Strict Liability: exploring the normative significance of causal relations.Alexandra Couto - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (9):2169-2189.
    I will discuss the relationship between two different accounts of remedial duty ascriptions. According to one account, the beneficiary account, individuals who benefit innocently from injustices ought to bear remedial responsibilities towards the victims of these injustices. According to another account, the causal account, individuals who caused injustices ought to bear remedial duties towards the victim. In this paper, I examine the relation between the principles central to these accounts: the Beneficiary Pays Principle and the well-established principle of Strict Liability (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations