In R. A. Duff, L. Farmer, S. Marshall & V. Tadros (eds.), The Constitution of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press (forthcoming)
|Abstract||Can the state, as opposed to its individual human members in their personal capacity, intelligibly seek to avoid blame for unjustified wrongdoing by invoking excuses (as opposed to justifications)? Insofar as it can, should such claims ever be given moral and legal recognition? While a number of theorists have denied it in passing, the question remains radically underexplored. In this article (in its penultimate draft version), I seek to identify the main metaphysical and moral objections to state excuses, and begin to investigate their strength. I work from the ecumenical assumption that general understandings of modern states as group moral agents proper or as mere fictional points of imputation for individual behaviour are both plausible, and that the question of state excuses should be asked in terms of both paradigms. Issues addressed include: the lack of state consciousness/affect, the nature and relevance of developmental and executive defects in group agents, the value of state interests and how interests relate to plausible claims of excuses, the shortfall of responsibility argument for group responsibility and its interface with state excuses, the symbolic and consequential (dis)value that state excuses may have, as well as concerns that states are entities that should live up to outstandingly high virtuous standards of impartiality and equanimity. I conclude that even if the range of excuses available to states does not overlap neatly with excuses available to ordinary individuals, some excuses may still be morally available to states. More generally, I emphasize the need for a systematic discussion of group excuses writ large, and of their relationship with the wider question of when group entities may legitimately be singled out to bear adverse normative consequences for wrongdoing.|
|Keywords||excuses state group agency group responsibility fictions of agency and responsibility group consciouness state interests standards of state virtue constitutional disorders Pettit|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeremy Horder (2006). Excuses in Law and in Morality: A Response to Marcia Baron. Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (1):41-47.
Marcia Baron (2006). Excuses, Excuses. Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (1):21-39.
R. A. Duff (2006). Excuses, Moral and Legal: A Comment on Marcia Baron's 'Excuses, Excuses'. Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (1):49-55.
Christopher Evan Franklin (forthcoming). A Theory of the Normative Force of Pleas. Philosophical Studies.
Robert Franck & J. -L. Austin (1967). Les Excuses (« A Plea for Excuses »). Revue de Métaphysique Et de Morale 72 (4):414 - 445.
Erol Kuyurtar (2007). Are Cultural Group Rights Against Individual Rights? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 3:51-59.
Jeremy Horder (2004). Excusing Crime. OUP Oxford.
Carlo Proietti & Erik J. Olsson (forthcoming). A DDL Approach to Pluralistic Ignorance and Collective Belief. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-17.
Christian List & Philip Pettit (2006). Group Agency and Supervenience. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (S1):85-105.
Philip Pettit (2005). Group Agency and Supervenience. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (Supplement):85-105.
Kurt L. Sylvan (2012). How to Be a Redundant Realist. Episteme 9 (3):271-282.
Alex de Waal (1997). Group Identity, Rationality, and the State. Critical Review 11 (2):279-289.
John Austin (1956). A Plea for Excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57:1--30.
Added to index2011-10-30
Total downloads16 ( #74,686 of 549,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,722 of 549,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?