Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. What Do Climate Change Winners Owe, and to Whom?Kian Mintz-Woo & Justin Leroux - 2021 - Economics and Philosophy 37 (3):462-483.
    Climate ethics has been concerned with polluter pays, beneficiary pays and ability to pay principles, all of which consider climate change as a single negative externality. This paper considers it as a constellation of externalities, positive and negative, with different associated demands of justice. This is important because explicitly considering positive externalities has not to our knowledge been done in the climate ethics literature. Specifically, it is argued that those who enjoy passive gains from climate change owe gains not to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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   4 citations  
  • 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  
  • Collectives’ and Individuals’ Obligations: A Parity Argument.Stephanie Collins & Holly Lawford-Smith - 2016 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 46 (1):38-58.
    Individuals have various kinds of obligations: keep promises, don’t cause harm, return benefits received from injustices, be partial to loved ones, help the needy and so on. How does this work for group agents? There are two questions here. The first is whether groups can bear the same kinds of obligations as individuals. The second is whether groups’ pro tanto obligations plug into what they all-things-considered ought to do to the same degree that individuals’ pro tanto obligations plug into what (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Benefiting From Wrongdoing and Moral Protest.Sigurd Lindstad - 2021 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 24 (3):753-765.
    Some normative theorists believe that there is a principled moral reason not to retain benefits realized by injustice or wrongdoing. However, critics have argued that this idea is implausible. One purported problem is that the idea lacks an obvious rationale and that attempts to provide one have been unconvincing. This paper articulates and defends the idea that the principled reason in question has an expressive quality: it gets its reason-giving force from the symbolic aptness of such an act as an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Exploitation and Joint Action.Erik Malmqvist & András Szigeti - 2019 - Journal of Social Philosophy 50 (3):280-300.
    Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Precaution and Fairness: A Framework for Distributing Costs of Protection From Environmental Risks.Espen Dyrnes Stabell & Daniel Steel - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (1):55-71.
    While there is an extensive literature on how the precautionary principle should be interpreted and when precautions should be taken, relatively little discussion exists about the fair distribution of costs of taking precautions. We address this issue by proposing a general framework for deciding how costs of precautions should be shared, which consists of a series of default principles that are triggered according to desert, rights, and ability to pay. The framework is developed with close attention to the pragmatics of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Moral Judgment and the Duties of Innocent Beneficiaries of Injustice.Matthew Lindauer & Christian Barry - 2017 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 8 (3):671-686.
    The view that innocent beneficiaries of injustice bear special duties to victims of injustice has recently come under attack. Luck egalitarian theorists have argued that thought experiments focusing on the way innocent beneficiaries should distribute the benefits they’ve received provide evidence against this view. The apparent special duties of innocent beneficiaries, they hold, are wholly reducible to general duties to compensate people for bad brute luck. In this paper we provide empirical evidence in defense of the view that innocent beneficiaries (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Why Victims of Unjust Harm Should Take Priority Over Victims of Bad Luck.Goran Duus-Otterström & Edward Page - forthcoming - .
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Should the Beneficiaries Pay?Robert Huseby - 2015 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14 (2):1470594-13506366.
    Many theorists claim that if an agent benefits from an action that harms others, that agent has a moral duty to compensate those who are harmed, even if the agent did not cause the harm herself. In the debate on climate justice, this idea is commonly referred to as the beneficiary-pays principle . This paper argues that the BPP is implausible, both in the context of climate change and as a normative principle more generally. It should therefore be rejected.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Offsetting Race Privilege.Jeremey Dunham & Holly Lawford-Smith - 2017 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 11 (2):1-23.
    For all the talk there has been lately about privilege, few have commented on the moral obligations that are associated with having privilege. Those who have commented haven't gone much beyond the idea that the privileged should be conscious of their privilege, should listen to those who don't have it. Here we want to go further, and build an account of the moral obligations of those with a particular kind of privilege: race privilege. In this paper we articulate an understanding (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Individual Responsibilities in Partial Compliance: Skilled Health Worker Emigration From Under-Served Regions.Yusuf Yuksekdag - 2020 - Public Health Ethics 13 (1):89-98.
    One of the ways to address the effects of skilled worker emigration is to restrict the movement of skilled workers. However, even if skilled workers have responsibilities to assist their compatriots, what if other parties, such as affluent countries or source country governments, do not fulfil their fair share of responsibilities? This discussion raises an interesting problem about how to think of individual responsibilities under partial compliance where other agents do not fulfil their fair share of responsibilities. What is fair (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Animal Rights and the Duty to Harm: When to Be a Harm Causing Deontologist.C. E. Abbate - 2020 - Zeitschrift Für Ethik Und Moralphilosophie 3 (1):5-26.
    An adequate theory of rights ought to forbid the harming of animals to promote trivial interests of humans, as is often done in the animal-user industries. But what should the rights view say about situations in which harming some animals is necessary to prevent intolerable injustices to other animals? I develop an account of respectful treatment on which, under certain conditions, it’s justified to intentionally harm some individuals to prevent serious harm to others. This can be compatible with recognizing the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Benefiting From Injustice and the Common-Source Problem.Göran Duus-Otterström - 2017 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (5):1067-1081.
    According to the Beneficiary Pays Principle, innocent beneficiaries of an injustice stand in a special moral relationship with the victims of the same injustice. Critics have argued that it is normatively irrelevant that a beneficiary and a victim are connected in virtue of the same unjust 'source'. The aim of this paper is to defend the Beneficiary Pays Principle against this criticism. Locating the principle against the backdrop of corrective justice, it argues that the principle is correct in saying that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Who Owns It? Three Arguments for Land Claims in Latin America.Christian Barry & Gerhard Øverland - 2017 - Revista de Ciencia Politica 37 (3):713-736.
    Indigenous and non-indigenous communities in Latin America make land claims and support them with a variety of arguments. Some, such as Zapatistas and the Mapuche, have appealed to the “ancestral” or “historical” connections between specific communities and the land. Other groups, such as MST in Brazil, have appealed to the extremely unequal distribution of the land and the effects of this on the poor; the land in this case is seen mainly as a means for securing a decent standard of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Benefit Argument for Responsibilities to Rectify Injustice.Suzanne Neefus - unknown
    Daniel Butt develops an account of corrective responsibilities borne by beneficiaries of injustice. He defends the consistency model. I criticize the vagueness in this model and present two interpretations of benefit from injustice responsibilities: obligation and natural duty. The obligation model falls prey to the involuntariness objection. I defend a natural duties model, discussing how natural duties can be circumstantially perfected into directed duties and showing how the natural duties model avoids the involuntariness objection. I also address objections from structural (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Structural Injustice, Epistemic Opacity, and the Responsibilities of the Oppressed.Tamara Jugov & Lea Ypi - 2019 - Journal of Social Philosophy 50 (1):7-27.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • The Moral Taintedness of Benefiting From Injustice.Tom Parr - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):985-997.
    It is common to focus on the duties of the wrongdoer in cases that involve injustice. Presumably, the wrongdoer owes her victim an apology for having wronged her and perhaps compensation for having harmed her. But, these are not the only duties that may arise. Are other beneficiaries of an injustice permitted to retain the fruits of the injustice? If not, who becomes entitled to those funds? In recent years, the Connection Account has emerged as an influential account that purports (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Intention, Benefits, and Benefitting From Injustice.Hui Jin - 2015 - South African Journal of Philosophy 34 (2):149-162.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark