David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
[Journal (Paginated)] (in Press) 20 (1):75-94 (2001)
Third-party property insurance (TPPI) protects insured drivers who accidentally damage an expensive car from the threat of financial ruin. Perhaps more importantly though, TPPI also protects the victims whose losses might otherwise go uncompensated. Ought responsible drivers therefore take out TPPI? This paper begins by enumerating some reasons for why a rational person might believe that they have a moral obligation to take out TPPI. It will be argued that if what is at stake in taking responsibility is the ability to compensate our possible future victims for their losses, then it might initially seem that most people should be thankful for the availability of relatively inexpensive TPPI because without it they may not have sufficient funds to do the right thing and compensate their victims in the event of an accident. But is the ability to compensate one's victims really what is at stake in taking responsibility? The second part of this paper will critically examine the arguments for the above position, and it will argue that these arguments do not support the conclusion that injurers should compensate their victims for their losses, and hence that drivers need not take out TPPI in order to be responsible. Further still, even if these arguments did support the conclusion that injurers should compensate their victims for their losses, then (perhaps surprisingly) nobody should to be allowed to take out TPPI because doing so would frustrate justice.
|Keywords||responsibility compensation insurance|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Nicole A. Vincent (2005). Compensation for Mere Exposure to Risk. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 29:89-101.
Peter Vallentyne (2011). Responsibility and False Beliefs. In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemploska (eds.), Justice and Responsibility. Oxford University Press.
Nicole A. Vincent (2007). Responsibility, Compensation and Accident Law Reform. Dissertation, University of Adelaide
Michael L. Corrado (2001). Egalitarianism and the Problem of Tort Liability. Noûs 35 (s1):388-419.
Nahshon Perez (2011). On Compensation and Return: Can The 'Continuing Injustice Argument' for Compensating for Historical Injustices Justify Compensation for Such Injustices or the Return of Property? Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (2):151-168.
Carl Knight (2011). Responsibility, Desert, and Justice. In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), Responsibility and Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press.
William R. Cupach & James M. Carson (2002). The Influence of Compensation on Product Recommendations Made by Insurance Agents. Journal of Business Ethics 40 (2):167 - 176.
Mike W. Martin (2001). Responsibility for Health and Blaming Victims. Journal of Medical Humanities 22 (2):95-114.
Dwane Hal Dean (2004). Perceptions of the Ethicality of Consumer Insurance Claim Fraud. Journal of Business Ethics 54 (1):67-79.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #44,915 of 1,096,248 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #15,356 of 1,096,248 )
How can I increase my downloads?