Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Carbon Leakage and the Argument From No Difference.Matthew Rendall - 2015 - Environmental Values 24 (4):535-52.
    Critics of carbon mitigation often appeal to what Jonathan Glover has called ‘the argument from no difference’: that is, ‘If I don’t do it, someone else will’. Yet even if this justifies continued high emissions by the industrialised countries, it cannot excuse business as usual. The North’s emissions might not harm the victims of climate change in the sense of making them worse off than they would otherwise be. Nevertheless, it receives benefits produced at the latter’s expense, with the result (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dos principios retrospectivos de justicia climática.Iñigo González Ricoy - 2019 - Isegoría 61:623-640.
    The paper examines two backwardlooking 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  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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   1 citation  
  • 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  
  • Legitimidad intergeneracional.Inigo Gonzalez-Ricoy (ed.) - 2018 - Barcelona:
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    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  
  • Does Excusable Ignorance Absolve of Liability for Costs?Joachim Wündisch - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (4):837-851.
    Excusable ignorance not only undermines moral culpability but also agent-responsibility. Therefore, excusable ignorance absolves of liability for costs. Specifically, it defeats liability that is meant to be derived from causal responsibility wherever strict liability cannot be justified. To establish these claims this paper assesses the potential of arguments for liability of excusably ignorant agents and thereby demarcates the proper domain of strict liability and traces the intuition that seemingly supports strict liability accounts to more general principles. The paper concludes that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations