Re'em Segev Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Contact

Affiliations
  • Faculty, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Areas of specialization

Areas of interest
  • None specified

blank
About me
Not much to say..
My works
21 items found.
Sort by:
  1. Re'em Segev (forthcoming). Moral Rightness and the Significance of Law: Why, How and When Mistake of Law Matters. University of Toronto Law Journal, Forthcoming.
    The question of whether a mistake of law should negate or mitigate criminal liability is commonly considered to be pertinent to the culpability of the agent, often examined in light of the (epistemic) reasonableness of the mistake. I argue that this view disregards an important aspect of this question, namely whether a mistake of law affects the rightness of the action, particularly in light of the moral significance of the mistake. I argue that several plausible premises, regarding moral rightness under (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Re'em Segev (2013). Making Sense of Discrimination. Ratio Juris (1):47-78.
    Discrimination is a central moral and legal concept. However, it is also a contested one. Particularly, accounts of the wrongness of discrimination often rely on controversial and particular assumptions. In this paper, I argue that a theory of discrimination that relies on premises that are general (rather than unique to the concept of discrimination) and widely accepted provides a plausible (exhaustive) account of the concept of wrongful discrimination. According to the combined theory, wrongful discrimination consists of allocating a benefit that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Re'em Segev (2013). The Argument for (Living) Originalism: Comments on Jack Balkin's Theory of Constitutional Interpretation. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies.
    In this comment I consider Jack Balkin’s general argument for his method of constitutional interpretation – the question of why interpret (the United States Constitution) in this way (as presented in his book Living Originalism). I contrast this question with the way in which the conclusion of this argument should be implemented with regard to specific clauses – the question of how to interpret (the United States Constitution). While the former question is concerned with the general form of the argument, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Re'em Segev (2012). Justification Under Uncertainty. Law and Philosophy 31 (5):523-563.
    There is a controversy as to the moral status of an action in the face of uncertainty concerning a non-moral fact that is morally significant (according to an applicable moral standard): According to the objective conception, the right action is determined in light of the truth, namely the actual state of affairs (regarding the pertinent fact), whereas according to the subjective conception, the right action depends on the epistemic state of the agent, namely her (justified) belief (concerning the pertinent fact). (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Re'em Segev (2011). Governmental Power: Quality or Identity? Comment on Alon Harel's Argument Against Outsourcing Violence. Law and Ethics of Human Rights 5 (2):416-423.
    What is the appropriate division of power between public officials and private individuals? The straightforward answer to this question, it seems, is that an official should have a power if she employs it (morally) better compared to a private individual. However, Alon Harel argues that this answer is misguided, or at least partially, since there are some decisions—mainly concerning the employment of violence—that should be made and implemented only by public officials regardless of the (relative) moral quality of the decision (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Re'em Segev (2010). Hierarchical Consequentialism. Utilitas 22 (3):309-330.
    The paper considers a hierarchical theory that combines concern for two values: individual well-being – as a fundamental, first-order value – and (distributive) fairness – as a high-order value that its exclusive function is to complete the value of individual well-being by resolving internal clashes within it that occur in interpersonal conflicts. The argument for this unique conception of high-order fairness is that fairness is morally significant in itself only regarding what matters – individual well-being – and when it matters (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Re'em Segev (2010). Is the Criminal Law (So) Special? Comments on Douglas Husak’s Theory of Criminalization. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 1 (1):3-20.
    This is Re'em Segev's contribution to the symposium on Douglas Husak's book "Overcriminalization.".
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Re'em Segev (2009). Balancing, Judicial Review and Disobedience: Comments on Richard Posner’s Analysis of Anti-Terror Measures (Not a Suicide Pact). Israel Law Review 43 (2):234-247.
    The general assumption that underlines Richard Posner’s argument in his book Not a Suicide Pact is that decisions concerning rights and security in the context of modern terrorism should be made by balancing competing interests. This assumption is obviously correct if one refers to the most rudimentary sense of balancing, namely, the idea that normative decisions should be made in light of the importance of the relevant values and considerations. However, Posner advocates a more specific conception of balancing, both substantively (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Re'em Segev (2009). Second-Order Equality and Levelling Down. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (3):425 – 443.
    Many think that equality is an intrinsic value. However, this view, especially when based on a consequential foundation, faces familiar objections related to the claim that equality is sometimes good for none and bad for some: most notably the levelling down objection. This article explores a unique (consequential) conception of equality, as part of a more general conception of fairness concerning the resolution of interpersonal conflicts, which is not exposed to these objections.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Re'em Segev (2009). Sub-Optimal Justification and Justificatory Defenses. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):57-76.
    Justificatory defenses apply to actions that are generally wrong and illegal—mainly since they harm people—when they are (exceptionally) justified—usually since they prevent (more serious) harm to others. A strict conception of justification limits justificatory defenses to actions that reflect all pertinent principles in the optimal manner. A more relaxed conception of justification applies (also) to actions that do not reflect all pertinent principles optimally due to (unjustified) mistake but are not too far from this optimum. In the paper, I consider (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Re'em Segev (2008). Freedom of Expression: Justifications & Restrictions. Israel Democracy Institute.
    "Freedom of expression" is a complex notion that reflects various considerations and raises many questions related to their content and interaction. This paper is an abstract of a book that considers general aspects regarding the justification and the limits of freedom of expression and analyzes exiting law in light of this normative discussion. Particularly, it considers the way to determine the proper scope of freedom of expression; first-order and second-order considerations in favor and against freedom of expression, both in general (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Re'em Segev (2008). Responsibility and Moral Luck: Comments on Benjamin Zipursky, 'Two Dimensions of Responsibility in Crime, Tort, and Moral Luck'. Theoretical Inquiries in Law Forum 9 (1):39-46.
    The essence of the moral luck question is whether the responsibility of persons is determined only in light of actions that are within their control or also in light of factors, such as the consequences of their actions, which are beyond their control. Most people seem to have contrasting intuitions regarding this question. On the one hand, there is a common intuition that the responsibility of persons should be judged only in light of what is within their control. On the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Re'em Segev (2008). The Distributive Justice Theory of Self-Defense: A Response to Whitley Kaufman. Ethics and International Affairs 22 (1).
    In several papers, I have argued for a theory of distributive justice and considered its implications. This theory includes a principle of responsibility that was endorsed by others within an account of defensive force (self-defense and defense of others). Whitley Kaufman criticizes this account which he refers to as the "distributive justice theory of self-defense" (DJ theory). In this paper, I respond to this criticism. I argue that Kaufman presents the theory inaccurately, that his standard of evaluation of the theory (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Re'em Segev (2008). Weighing Values and Balancing Interests. Israel Democracy Institute.
    One of the central normative questions regards a decision between conflicting moral values. A decision of this nature is often required in disciplines such as philosophy, economics and law. According to common terminology, a decision between conflicting values reflects a balance of values, considerations or interests. Several types of questions arise in this context. One category includes substantive questions: which values exist, which considerations should be derived from these values, what is the degree of importance of these considerations, and which (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Re'em Segev (2007). Lesser Evil and Responsibility: Comments on Jeff McMahan's Analysis of the Morality of War. Israel Law Review 40 (3):709-729.
    The main aim of Jeff McMahan's manuscript on the morality of war is to answer the question: why and accordingly when is it justified or permissible to kill people in war? However, McMahan argues that the same principles apply to individual actions and to war. McMahan rejects all doctrines of collective responsibility and liability. His claim is that every individual is liable for what he has done and not for the actions of others - even if both are part of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Re'em Segev (2006). Justification, Rationality and Mistake: Mistake of Law is No Excuse? It Might Be a Justificaton! [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 25 (1):31-79.
    According to a famous maxim, ignorance or mistake of law is no excuse. This maxim is supposed to represent both the standard and the proper rule of law. In fact, this maxim should be qualified in both respects: ignorance and mistake of law sometimes are, and (perhaps even more often) should be, excused. But this dual qualification only reinforces the fundamental and ubiquitous assumption which underlies the discussions of the subject, namely, that the only ground of exculpation relevant to ignorance (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Re'em Segev (2006). Well-Being and Fairness. Philosophical Studies 131 (2):369-391.
    The article explores the interaction of two, potentially clashing, considerations, each reflecting a different conception of fairness concerning the resolution of interpersonal conflicts. According to the Equal Chance Principle, the harm for each person should be minimized in a significant and (roughly) equal degree; when this is impossible, each person should be accorded the highest possible equal chance to avoid the harm. According to the Importance Principle, the danger to the person who would otherwise suffer the more serious harm should (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Re'em Segev (2005). Review of Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. [REVIEW] Ethics 115 (4):821-824.
    How should a democratic state fight terrorism? This is the question discussed by Michael Ignatieff in his latest book. Ignatieff explores several possible positions as a response to this question. The review considers the analysis of these positions.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Re'em Segev (2005). Well-Being and Fairness in the Distribution of Scarce Health Resources. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (3):231 – 260.
    Based on a general thesis regarding the proper resolution of interpersonal conflicts, this paper suggests a normative framework for the distribution of scarce health resources. The proposed thesis includes two basic ideas. First, individual well-being is the fundamental value. Second, interpersonal conflicts affecting well-being should be resolved in light of several conceptions of fairness, reflecting the independent value of persons and the moral significance of responsibility of individuals for the existence of interpersonal conflicts. These ideas are elaborated in several principles (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Re'em Segev (2001). Freedom of Expression Against Governmental Authorities. Israel Democracy Institute.
    The subject of this study is the justification for limiting negative expression directed at the government: its institutions and public officials, in order to preserve public faith in government. This paper is an abstract of a book that considers this question. The conclusion is that since the value of speech concerned with the performance of government is very high and the interest in protecting the status of government is limited and typically not substantial, there is generally no justification for legal (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Mordechai Kremnitzer & Re'em Segev (2000). The Legality of Interrogational Torture: A Question of Proper Authorization or a Substantive Moral Issue. Israel Law Review 34 (2):509-559.
    The article explores the Israeli Supreme Court main judgment regarding the legality of the use of special interrogation methods in order extract information concerning future acts of terror. The Judgment's main conclusion was that while there might be a justification for using exceptional interrogation measures in order to save lives, based on the concept of lesser evil as embedded in the criminal defense of necessity, the government is nevertheless not authorized to use such means in the absence of explicit legislation (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
Is this list right?