Results for 'Liability'

177 found
Order:
  1. The Liability of Justified Attackers.Uwe Steinhoff - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):1016-1030.
    McMahan argues that justification defeats liability to defensive attack (which would undermine the thesis of the "moral equality of combatants"). In response, I argue, first, that McMahan’s attempt to burden the contrary claim with counter-intuitive implications fails; second, that McMahan’s own position implies that the innocent civilians do not have a right of self-defense against justified attackers, which neither coheres with his description of the case (the justified bombers infringe the rights of the civilians) nor with his views about (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  2. Complicitous liability in war.Saba Bazargan - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (1):177-195.
    Jeff McMahan has argued against the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) by developing a liability-based account of killing in warfare. On this account, a combatant is morally liable to be killed only if doing so is an effective means of reducing or eliminating an unjust threat to which that combatant is contributing. Since combatants fighting for a just cause generally do not contribute to unjust threats, they are not morally liable to be killed; thus MEC is mistaken. The problem, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  3. Liability to International Prosecution: The Nature of Universal Jurisdiction.Anthony Reeves - 2017 - European Journal of International Law 28 (4):1047-1067.
    The paper considers the proper method for theorizing about criminal jurisdiction. It challenges a received understanding of how to substantiate the right to punish, and articulates an alternative account of how that theoretical task is properly conducted. The received view says that a special relationship is the ground of a tribunal’s authority to prosecute and, hence, that a normative theory of that authority is faced with identifying a distinctive relation. The alternative account locates prosecutorial standing on an institution’s capacity to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. Just saying, just kidding : liability for accountability-avoiding speech in ordinary conversation, politics and law.Elisabeth Camp - 2022 - In Laurence R. Horn (ed.), From lying to perjury: linguistic and legal perspective on lies and other falsehoods. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 227-258.
    Mobsters and others engaged in risky forms of social coordination and coercion often communicate by saying something that is overtly innocuous but transmits another message ‘off record’. In both ordinary conversation and political discourse, insinuation and other forms of indirection, like joking, offer significant protection from liability. However, they do not confer blanket immunity: speakers can be held to account for an ‘off record’ message, if the only reasonable interpreta- tions of their utterance involve a commitment to it. Legal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5. Rights, Liability, and the Moral Equality of Combatants.Uwe Steinhoff - 2012 - The Journal of Ethics 16 (4):339-366.
    According to the dominant position in the just war tradition from Augustine to Anscombe and beyond, there is no "moral equality of combatants." That is, on the traditional view the combatants participating in a justified war may kill their enemy combatants participating in an unjustified war - but not vice versa (barring certain qualifications). I shall argue here, however, that in the large number of wars (and in practically all modern wars) where the combatants on the justified side violate the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  6. Liability, community, and just conduct in war.Jonathan Parry - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (12):3313-3333.
    Those of us who are not pacifists face an obvious challenge. Common-sense morality contains a stringent constraint on intentional killing, yet war involves homicide on a grand scale. If wars are to be morally justified, it needs be shown how this conflict can be reconciled. A major fault line running throughout the contemporary just war literature divides two approaches to attempting this reconciliation. On a ‘reductivist’ view, defended most prominently by Jeff McMahan, the conflict is largely illusory, since such killing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7. Defensive Liability Without Culpability.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2016 - In Christian Coons & Michael Weber (eds.), The Ethics of Self-Defense. New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA.
    A minimally responsible threatener is someone who bears some responsibility for imposing an objectively wrongful threat, but whose responsibility does not rise to the level of culpability. Minimally responsible threateners include those who knowingly commit a wrongful harm under duress, those who are epistemically justified but mistaken in their belief that a morally risky activity will not cause a wrongful harm, and those who commit a harm while suffering from a cognitive impairment which makes it prohibitively difficult to recognize and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Civil liability and the 50%+ standard of proof.Martin Smith - 2021 - International Journal of Evidence and Proof 25 (3):183-199.
    The standard of proof applied in civil trials is the preponderance of evidence, often said to be met when a proposition is shown to be more than 50% likely to be true. A number of theorists have argued that this 50%+ standard is too weak – there are circumstances in which a court should find that the defendant is not liable, even though the evidence presented makes it more than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. In this paper, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9. Is the risk–liability theory compatible with negligence law?Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta - 2005 - Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404.
    David McCarthy has recently suggested that our compensation and liability practices may be interpreted as reflecting a fundamental norm to hold people liable for imposing risk of harm on others. Independently, closely related ideas have been criticised by Stephen R. Perry and Arthur Ripstein as incompatible with central features of negligence law. We aim to show that these objections are unsuccessful against McCarthy’s Risk–liability theory, and that such an approach is a promising means both for understanding the moral (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  10. Causation and Liability to Defensive Harm.Lars Christie - 2020 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 37 (3):378-392.
    An influential view in the ethics of self-defence is that causal responsibility for an unjust threat is a necessary requirement for liability to defensive harm. In this article, I argue against this view by providing intuitive counterexamples and by revealing weaknesses in the arguments offered in its favour. In response, adherents of the causal view have advanced the idea that although causally inefficacious agents are not liable to defensive harm, the fact that they may deserve harm can justify harming (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11. Firth and Quong on Liability to Defensive Harm: A Critique.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    Joanna Mary Firth and Jonathan Quong argue that both an instrumental account of liability to defensive harm, according to which an aggressor can only be liable to defensive harms that are necessary to avert the threat he poses, and a purely noninstrumental account which completely jettisons the necessity condition, lead to very counterintuitive implications. To remedy this situation, they offer a “pluralist” account and base it on a distinction between “agency rights” and a “humanitarian right.” I argue, first, that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. Necessity and Liability: On an Honour-Based Justification for Defensive Harming.Joseph Bowen - 2016 - Journal of Practical Ethics 4 (2):79-93.
    This paper considers whether victims can justify what appears to be unnecessary defensive harming by reference to an honour-based justification. I argue that such an account faces serious problems: the honour-based justification cannot permit, first, defensive harming, and second, substantial unnecessary harming. Finally, I suggest that, if the purpose of the honour based justification is expressive, an argument must be given to demonstrate why harming threateners, as opposed to opting for a non-harmful alternative, is the most effective means of affirming (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  13. Ultimate Integrity: A Reformulation of Unlimited Liability.Christopher Maier - 2023 - Canadian Journal of Practical Philosophy 10 (1).
    An examination of the idea of Unlimited Liability found in the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) ethos as a reason for the acceptance of lethal risk tasking faced by members of the CAF. This paper argues that the idea of unlimited liability is at best unhelpful as a concept and needs to be replaced with the concept of ‘ultimate integrity.’ This new concept links directly to the CAF’s first ethical principle – respect the dignity of all persons. This new (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. Generative AI in EU Law: Liability, Privacy, Intellectual Property, and Cybersecurity.Claudio Novelli, Federico Casolari, Philipp Hacker, Giorgio Spedicato & Luciano Floridi - manuscript
    The advent of Generative AI, particularly through Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and its successors, marks a paradigm shift in the AI landscape. Advanced LLMs exhibit multimodality, handling diverse data formats, thereby broadening their application scope. However, the complexity and emergent autonomy of these models introduce challenges in predictability and legal compliance. This paper analyses the legal and regulatory implications of Generative AI and LLMs in the European Union context, focusing on liability, privacy, intellectual property, and cybersecurity. It (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. The Search for Liability in the Defensive Killing of Nonhuman Animals.Cheryl Abbate & C. E. Abbate - 2015 - Social Theory and Practice 41 (1):106-130.
    While theories of animal rights maintain that nonhuman animals possess prima facie rights, such as the right to life, the dominant philosophies of animal rights permit the killing of nonhuman animals for reasons of self-defense. I argue that the animal rights discourse on defensive killing is problematic because it seems to entail that any nonhuman animal who poses a threat to human beings can be justifiably harmed without question. To avoid this human-privileged conclusion, I argue that the animal rights position (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  16. Rights Forfeiture and Liability to Harm.Massimo Renzo - 2017 - Journal of Political Philosophy 25 (3):324-342.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  17. Proportionality in the Liability to Compensate.Todd Karhu - 2022 - Law and Philosophy 41 (5):583-600.
    There is widely thought to be a proportionality constraint on harming others in self-defense, such that an act of defensive force can be impermissible because the harm it would inflict on an attacker is too great relative to the harm to the victim it would prevent. But little attention has been given to whether a corresponding constraint exists in the ethics of compensation, and, if so, what the nature of that constraint is. This article explores the issue of proportionality as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. Material Contribution, Responsibility, and Liability.Christian Barry - 2018 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 15 (6):637-650.
    In her inventive and tightly argued book Defensive Killing, Helen Frowe defends the view that bystanders—those who do not pose threats to others—cannot be liable to being harmed in self-defence or in defence of others. On her account, harming bystanders always infringes their rights against being harmed, since they have not acted in any way to forfeit them. According to Frowe, harming bystanders can be justified only when it constitutes a lesser evil. In this brief essay, I make the case (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19. Justifying Defense Against Non-Responsible Threats and Justified Aggressors: the Liability vs. the Rights-Infringement Account.Uwe Steinhoff - 2016 - Philosophia 44 (1):247-265.
    Even among those who find lethal defense against non-responsible threats, innocent aggressors, or justified aggressors justified even in one to one cases, there is a debate as to what the best explanation of this permissibility is. The contenders in this debate are the liability account, which holds that the non-responsible or justified human targets of the defensive measures are liable to attack, and the justified infringement account, which claims that the targets retain their right not to be attacked but (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  20. The Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability: Supporting Intentions.Sherif Girgis - 2013 - Yale Law Journal 123:460-494.
    Accomplice liability makes someone guilty of a crime he never committed, so long as he helped or influenced the perpetrator and did so with the required mens rea. Just what that mens rea should be has been contested for more than a century. Here I consider three major approaches and find them all wanting. I propose rejecting their common (but rarely questioned) assumption that what matters is the helper’s mental state toward the perpetrator’s commission of an offense. I suggest (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  21. Bioethics, Complementarity, and Corporate Criminal Liability.Ryan Long - 2017 - International Criminal Law Review 17 (6):997-1021.
    This article provides a brief introduction to some contemporary challenges found in the intersection of bioethics and international criminal law involving genetic privacy, organ trafficking, genetic engineering, and cloning. These challenges push us to re-evaluate the question of whether the international criminal law should hold corporations criminally liable. I argue that a minimalist and Strawsonian conception of corporate responsibility could be useful for deterring the wrongs outlined in first few sections and in answering compelling objections to corporate criminal liability.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. The doctrine of vicarious liability and justification for its existence in Zimbabwe's law of delict.Tatenda Ngara - manuscript
    The doctrine of vicarious liability provides that an employer is vicariously or indirectly liable for all delicts or violations of the law committed by his or her employees when they are acting in the course and within the scope of their employment at the time when a delict is committed. In simple terms it is law that imposes liability on employers for the wrong doings of their employees. Some of the reasons why it has been justifiable to have (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. Organization of accounting of assets, liabilities and results of the enterprise activities.Maksym Bezpartochnyi - 2023 - Kosice: Vysoká škola bezpečnostného manažérstva v Košiciach.
    The monograph highlights the results of research of theoretical, methodological and practical aspects of the formation of accounting information for the needs of management, regulatory regulation of the accounting system as an institutional factor in the organization and choice of forms of accounting of the enterprise, organization of accounting of assets, liabilities and results of agricultural enterprises. The problems of the methodology for organizing the accounting of individual objects and ways to solve them are revealed. The monograph is intended for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. The Benefits of Experience Greatly Exceed the Liabilities.Ethan Bradley & David Wasserman - 2023 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (1):44-46.
    Nelson et al.(2023) argue that the inclusion of personal experience in bioethical debates has significant benefits and liabilities, illustrating their claim with two examples: unproven medical treatments and disability bioethics. We believe that the benefits of including personal experience in disability bioethics far exceed its liabilities. The absence of participants with relevant experience impoverishes and biases bioethical debates, while the biases risked by their inclusion are hardly unique to personal experiences and are readily mitigated.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. Just Cause, Liability, and the Moral Inequality of Combatants.Gerald Lang - 2012 - Theoretical and Applied Ethics 1 (4):54-60.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. Patient-Funded Trials: Opportunity or Liability?Danielle M. Wenner, Alex John London & Jonathan Kimmelman - 2015 - Cell Stem Cell 17 (2):135-137.
    Patient-funded trials are gaining traction as a means of accelerating clinical translation. However, such trials sidestep mechanisms that promote rigor, relevance, efficiency, and fairness. We recommend that funding bodies or research institutions establish mechanisms for merit review of patient-funded trials, and we offer some basic criteria for evaluating PFT protocols.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  27. Ageing and the Pay-as-you-go (PAYG) Pension System’s Asset-liability (Mis)Matching.József Banyár - 2019 - In Łukasz Tomczyk & Andrzej Klimczuk (eds.), Between Successful and Unsuccessful Ageing: Selected Aspects and Contexts. Kraków: Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie. pp. 163–206.
    The study present how in the late 1930s-1940s a new, modern pension system was introduced in America without any theoretical basis, as a kind of arbitrary mix of existing pension systems, to replace the by then non-functioning “traditional pension system” in which working children maintained their ageing parents in exchange for having been raised. Later, in 1958, they found an ideology for the system, “solidarity between generations,” but this didn’t fit in with the system’s economic foundations, with the fact that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28. Lived religion in a plural society: a resource or liability.Ashok Kaul & Chitaranjan Adhikary - 2014 - Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 4 (1):89-102.
    Recently there is a renewed academic interest in religion bringing it back on the global political agenda. Religion in the post modern global order is fast emerging as a new organizing principle in the face of multi-polarity, trans-nationality and sweeping pluralisation of peoples. Contrary to the secularist self believe, the modern has failed to take over the tradition including religion. Rather a logical opposite seems to be happening, questioning the very presumptions of the modernity project. The present paper is a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. Who Should Bear the Risk When Self-Driving Vehicles Crash?Antti Kauppinen - 2020 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 38 (4):630-645.
    The moral importance of liability to harm has so far been ignored in the lively debate about what self-driving vehicles should be programmed to do when an accident is inevitable. But liability matters a great deal to just distribution of risk of harm. While morality sometimes requires simply minimizing relevant harms, this is not so when one party is liable to harm in virtue of voluntarily engaging in activity that foreseeably creates a risky situation, while having reasonable alternatives. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  30. Businesses, Technological Innovations, and Responsibility.Aatif Abbas - 2023 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 42 (3):269-290.
    This article argues that businesses are morally responsible for compensating the people harmed by their activities even if they were not negligent, i.e., the businesses took reasonable precautions. Critics of this position maintain that responsibility requires choice, and by taking precautions, businesses choose not to harm others. This article accepts their argument’s first premise but rejects the second premise. It contends that businesses often seek risky or innovative activities to increase profits, and the essence of innovative activities is that precautions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31. The Wrong Way to Protect Small Business.Jules Coleman - manuscript
    US Senate is considering legislation designed to immunize small businesses from lawsuits brought by customers alleging to have been infected with COVID-19 while on the premises. The legislation seeks to subsidize reopening small businesses by reducing their vulnerability to liability. I argue that the legislation produces worse public health outcomes than existing liability regimes, obliterates claims to redress supported by corrective justice, and unfairly burdens victims by forcing them to become de facto insurers of their injurers. In the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. Robots, Law and the Retribution Gap.John Danaher - 2016 - Ethics and Information Technology 18 (4):299–309.
    We are living through an era of increased robotisation. Some authors have already begun to explore the impact of this robotisation on legal rules and practice. In doing so, many highlight potential liability gaps that might arise through robot misbehaviour. Although these gaps are interesting and socially significant, they do not exhaust the possible gaps that might be created by increased robotisation. In this article, I make the case for one of those alternative gaps: the retribution gap. This gap (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   64 citations  
  33. Criminal Responsibility.Ken Levy - 2022 - In Joseph Keim Campbell, Kristin M. Mickelson & V. Alan White (eds.), A Companion to Free Will. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 406-413.
    I explicate the conditions required for criminal responsibility, provide an overview of criminal defenses, distinguish criminal responsibility from both tort liability and moral responsibility, and explicate the current state of the insanity defense.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Shortcomings of and Alternatives to the Rights-Forfeiture Theory of Justified Self-Defense and Punishment.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    I argue that rights-forfeiture by itself is no path to permissibility at all (even barring special circumstances), neither in the case of self-defense nor in the case of punishment. The limiting conditions of self-defense, for instance – necessity, proportionality (or no gross disproportionality), and the subjective element – are different in the context of forfeiture than in the context of justification (and might even be absent in the former context). In particular, I argue that a culpable aggressor, unlike an innocent (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. What Follows from Defensive Non-Liaibility?Gerald Lang - 2017 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 117 (3):231-252.
    Theories of self-defence tend to invest heavily in ‘liability justifications’: if the Attacker is liable to have defensive violence deployed against him by the Defender, then he will not be wronged by such violence, and selfdefence becomes, as a result, morally unproblematic. This paper contends that liability justifications are overrated. The deeper contribution to an explanation of why defensive permissions exist is made by the Defender’s non-liability. Drawing on both canonical cases of self-defence, featuring Culpable Attackers, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  36. Young on Responsibility and Structural Injustice. [REVIEW]Christian Barry & Luara Ferracioli - 2013 - Criminal Justice Ethics 32 (3):247-257.
    Our aim in this essay is to critically examine Iris Young’s arguments in her important posthumously published book against what she calls the liability model for attributing responsibility, as well as the arguments that she marshals in support of what she calls the social connection model of political responsibility. We contend that her arguments against the liability model of conceiving responsibility are not convincing, and that her alternative to it is vulnerable to damaging objections.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  37. Reparations for Police Killings.Jennifer M. Page - 2019 - Perspectives on Politics 17 (4):958-972.
    After a fatal police shooting in the United States, it is typical for city and police officials to view the family of the deceased through the lens of the law. If the family files a lawsuit, the city and police department consider it their legal right to defend themselves and to treat the plaintiffs as adversaries. However, reparations and the concept of “reparative justice” allow authorities to frame police killings in moral rather than legal terms. When a police officer kills (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  38. McMahan, Symmetrical Defense and the Moral Equality of Combatants.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    McMahan’s own example of a symmetrical defense case, namely his tactical bomber example, opens the door wide open for soldiers to defend their fellow-citizens (on grounds of their special obligations towards them) even if as part of this defense they target non-liable soldiers. So the soldiers on both sides would be permitted to kill each other and, given how McMahan defines “justification,” they would also be justified in doing so and hence not be liable. Thus, we arrive, against McMahan’s intentions, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Assessing arms makers' corporate social responsibility.Edmund F. Byrne - 2007 - Journal of Business Ethics 74 (3):201 - 217.
    Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a focal point for research aimed at extending business ethics to extra-corporate issues; and as a result many companies now seek to at least appear dedicated to one or another version of CSR. This has not affected the arms industry, however. For, this industry has not been discussed in CSR literature, perhaps because few CSR scholars have questioned this industry's privileged status as an instrument of national sovereignty. But major changes in the organization of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  40. Robots, jobs, taxes, and responsibilities.Luciano Floridi - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (1):1-4.
    Robots—in the form of apps, webbots, algorithms, house appliances, personal assistants, smart watches, and other systems—proliferate in the digital world, and increasingly perform a number of tasks more speedily and efficiently than humans can. This paper explores how in the future robots can be regulated when working alongside humans, focusing on issues such as robot taxation and legal liability.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  41. Legal Luck.Ori Herstein - forthcoming - In Herstein Ori (ed.), Rutledge Companion to the Philosophy of Luck. Rutledge.
    Explaining the notion of legal luck and exploring its justification. Focusing on how legal luck relates to moral luck, legal causation and negligence, and to civil and criminal liability.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  42. The Moral Equality of Combatants.Barry Christian & Christie Lars - 2017 - In Lazar Seth & Frowe Helen (eds.), The Oxford Handbook to the Philosophy of War. Oxford University Press.
    The doctrine of the moral equality of combatants holds that combatants on either side of a war have equal moral status, even if one side is fighting a just war while the other is not. This chapter examines arguments that have been offered for and against this doctrine, including the collectivist position famously articulated by Walzer and McMahan’s influential individualist critique. We also explore collectivist positions that have rejected the moral equality doctrine and arguments that some individualists have offered in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. Environmental Security and Just Causes for War.Juha Räikkä & Andrei Rodin - 2015 - Almanac: Discourses of Ethics 10 (1):47-54.
    This article asks whether a country that suffers from serious environmental problems caused by another country could have a just cause for a defensive war? Danish philosopher Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen has argued that under certain conditions extreme poverty may give a just cause for a country to defensive war, if that poverty is caused by other countries. This raises the question whether the victims of environmental damages could also have a similar right to self-defense. Although the article concerns justice of war, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. Beyond Moral Responsibility and Lesser-Evils: Moral Desert as a Supplementary Justification for Defensive Killing.James Murray - 2014 - Dissertation, Queen's University
    In recent years, philosopher Jeff McMahan has solidified an influential view that moral desert is irrelevant to the ethics of self-defense. This work aims to criticize this view by demonstrating that there are cases in which moral desert has a niche position in determining whether it may be permissible to kill a person in self- (or other-)defense. This is done by criticizing McMahan’s Responsibility Account of liability as being overly punitive against minimally responsible threateners (MRTs), and by demonstrating, through (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45. Wrongful Life Claims and Negligent Selection of Gametes or Embryos in Infertility Treatments: A Quest for Coherence.Noam Gur - 2014 - Journal of Law and Medicine 22:426-441.
    This article discusses an anomaly in the English law of reproductive liability: that is, an inconsistency between the law’s approach to wrongful life claims and its approach to cases of negligent selection of gametes or embryos in infertility treatments (the selection cases). The article begins with an account of the legal position, which brings into view the relevant inconsistency: while the law treats wrongful life claims as non- actionable, it recognises a cause of action in the selection cases, although (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46. Complicity.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2018 - In Kirk Ludwig & Marija Jankovic (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality. New York: Routledge.
    Complicity marks out a way that one person can be liable to sanctions for the wrongful conduct of another. After describing the concept and role of complicity in the law, I argue that much of the motivation for presenting complicity as a separate basis of criminal liability is misplaced; paradigmatic cases of complicity can be assimilated into standard causation-based accounts of criminal liability. But unlike others who make this sort of claim I argue that there is still room (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  47. Pinkerton Short-Circuits the Model Penal Code.Andrew Ingram - 2019 - Villanova Law Review 64 (1):71-99.
    I show that the Pinkerton rule in conspiracy law is doctrinally and morally flawed. Unlike past critics of the rule, I propose a statutory fix that preserves and reforms it rather than abolishing it entirely. As I will show, this accommodates authors like Neil Katyal who have defended the rule as an important crime fighting tool while also fixing most of the traditional problems with it identified by critics like Wayne LaFave. Pinkerton is a vicarious liability rule that makes (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48. Two Failed Accounts of Citizen Responsibility for State Action: On Stilz and Pasternak.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    Anna Stilz claims that citizens of democratic states bear “task responsibility” to repair unjust harms done by their states. I will argue that the only situation in which Stilz’s argument for such “task responsibility” is not redundant, given her own premises, is a situation where the state leaves it up to the citizens whether to indemnify others for the harms done by the state. I will also show that Stilz’s “authorization view” rests on an unwarranted and implausible assumption (which I (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. From Moral Responsibility to Legal Responsibility in the Conduct of War.Lavinia Andreea Bejan - 2015 - Symposion: Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 2 (3):347–362.
    Different societies came to consider certain behaviors as morally wrong, and, in time, due to a more or less general practice, those behaviors have also become legally prohibited. While, nowadays, the existence of legal responsibility of states and individuals for certain reprehensible acts committed during an armed conflict, international or non-international, is hard to be disputed, an inquiry into the manner in which the behavior of the belligerents has come to be considered reveals long discussions in the field of morals (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. A Crise Moral: a responsabilidade de administradores de instituições financeiras e o argumento da inevitabilidade.Ramiro Ávila Peres - 2016 - Revista da Procuradoria-Geral Do Banco Central 10 (2):15-36.
    This essay argues, through conceptual analysis, against an objection to reproaches addressed to financiers after the Crisis of 2007-8: the idea that they could not have acted otherwise (at least, not rationally) and that no one should be blamed for a fact one could not have avoided. If correct, this would threaten the justifiability of corporate social responsibility and legal responsibility of directors. Identified as the “thesis of inevitability”, this objection is illustrated by an analysis of the film Margin Call (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 177