This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
52 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 52
  1. Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (2012). Ferzander’s Surrebuttal. Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (3):463-465.
  2. Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (2012). “Moore or Less” Causation and Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (1):81-92.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  3. Frederic Stuart Baker (1987). A Proposed Solution to the Paradox of "Causation in the Law". Dissertation, Stanford University
    The thesis which I develop in this study is that the notion of cause which is used in law cases is defined by the purpose and scope of the legal inquiry. I attempt to clarify this thesis by analyzing the account of legal causation discussed by H. L. A. Hart and Tony Honore in their work Causation in the Law. ;H. & H. contend that in legal cases causal issues are decided according to a common-sense notion of cause which is (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Stathis Banakas, Legal Causation and Imputation in English Law (Causalité Juridique Et Imputation: Réflexions Sur Quelques Développements Récents En Droit Anglais).
    This paper, written in French, discusses legal causation in the light of recent developments in English Tort law.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Lawrence C. Becker (1987). Book Review:Causation in the Law. H. L. A. Hart, Tony Honore. [REVIEW] Ethics 97 (3):664-.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Sara Bernstein (forthcoming). Causal Proportions and Moral Responsibility. In Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility.
    This paper poses an original puzzle about the relationship between causation and moral responsibility called The Moral Difference Puzzle. Using the puzzle, the paper argues for three related ideas: (1) the existence of a new sort of moral luck; (2) an intractable conflict between the causal concepts used in moral assessment; and (3) inability of leading theories of causation to capture the sorts of causal differences that matter for moral evaluation of agents’ causal contributions to outcomes.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Andrew Botterell & Chris Essert (2010). Normativity, Fairness, and the Problem of Factual Uncertainty. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 47 (4):663-693.
    This article concerns the problem of factual uncertainty in negligence law. We argue that negligence law’s insistence that fair terms of interaction be maintained between individuals—a requirement that typically manifests itself in the need for the plaintiff to prove factual or “but-for” causation—sometimes allows for the imposition of liability in the absence of such proof. In particular, we argue that the but-for requirement can be abandoned in certain situations where multiple defendants have imposed the same unreasonable risk on a plaintiff, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Alex Broadbent (2011). Epidemiological Evidence in Proof of Specific Causation. Legal Theory 17 (4):237-278.
    This paper seeks to determine the significance, if any, of epidemiological evidence to prove the specific causation element of liability in negligence or other relevant torts—in particular, what importance can be attached to a relative risk > 2, where that figure represents a sound causal inference at the general level. The paper discusses increased risk approaches to epidemiological evidence and concludes that they are a last resort. The paper also criticizes the proposal that the probability of causation can be estimated (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9. Alex Broadbent (2009). Fact and Law in the Causal Inquiry. Legal Theory 15 (3):173-191.
    This paper takes it as a premise that a distinction between matters of fact and of law is important in the causal inquiry. But it argues that separating factual and legal causation as different elements of liability is not the best way to implement the fact/law distinction. What counts as a cause-in-fact is partly a legal question; and certain liability-limiting doctrines under the umbrella of “legal causation” depend on the application of factual-causal concepts. The contrastive account of factual causation proposed (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  10. Luka Burazin, Analysis of Legal Responsibility in the Case of Causing Damage (From the Standpoint of General Theory and Philosophy of Law).
    By taking as its starting point the results of criticism of the understanding of the duty of reparation as a type of civil law sanction, the article examines the possible changes in the contents of the concept of legal responsibility in the case of causing damage. Therefore, the author first analyzed the concept of legal responsibility from the standpoint of the General Theory and Philosophy of Law and identified its basic characteristics: normativity, relatedness, groundedness in the applicable legal procedure, personal (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Desmond M. Clarke (2014). Causation and Liability in Tort Law. Jurisprudence 5 (2):217-243.
    Many recent decisions in tort law attempt to combine two conceptually incommensurable features: a traditional 'but for' test of factual causation, and the scientific or medical evidence that is required to explain how some injury occurred. Even when applied to macroscopic objects, the 'but for' test fails to identify causes, because it merely rephrases in the language of possible worlds what may be inferred from what is inductively known about the actual world. Since scientific theories explain the occurrence of events (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Jonathan Fugelsang & Dunbar & Kevin (2006). A Cognitive Neuroscience Framework for Understanding Causal Reasoning and the Law. In Semir Zeki & Oliver Goodenough (eds.), Law and the Brain. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Haskell Fain (1966). Hart and Honoré on Causation in the Law. Inquiry 9 (1-4):322-338.
    Hart and Honoré contend, in their book Causation in the Law, that causal appraisals in everyday life and in the law can be made, with justifiable confidence, without appealing to relevant general laws; that in order to grasp the workings of causal notions in everyday life and the law, it is sufficient to note that causes are events which interfere with or intervene in the course of events which would normally have taken place. This thesis is criticized on the ground (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Federico Faroldi (2014). Responsibility Regardless of Causation. In Bacchini, Dell'Utri & Caputo (eds.), New Advances in Causation, Agency, and Moral Responsibility. Cambridge Scholars Press.
    This paper deals with the relationship between legal responsibility and causation. I argue that legal responsibility is not necessarily rooted in causation. The general claim I aim to disprove is that responsibility is descriptive because it is fundamentally rooted in causality, and causality is metaphysically real and founded. My strategy is twofold. First, I show (in §1) that there are significant and independent non- causal form of responsibility that cannot be reduced to causal responsibility; second, in §2, I show that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Federico Faroldi (2014). The Normative Structure of Responsibility. College Publications.
  16. Brian Flanagan (2013). Causal Legal Semantics: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (1):3-24.
    A provision’s legal meaning is thought by many to be a function of its literal meaning. To explain the appearance that lawyers are arguing over a provision’s legal meaning and not just over which outcome would be more prudent or morally preferable, some legal literalists claim that a provision’s literal meaning may be causally, rather than conventionally, determined. I argue, first, that the proposed explanation is inconsistent with common intuitions about legal meaning; second, that explaining legal disagreement as a function (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Philippa Foot (1963). Hart and Honoré: Causation in the Law. Philosophical Review 72 (4):505-515.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18. M. P. Golding (1962). Causation in the Law. Journal of Philosophy 59 (4):85-95.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Hyman Gross & Ross Harrison, Causation Outside the Law.
    In their important book, Causation in the Law, H. L. A. Hart and Tony Honore argue that causation in the law is based on causation outside the law, that the causal principles the courts rely on to determine legal responsibility are based on distinctions exercised in ordinary causal judgments. A distinction that particularly concerns them is one that divides factors that are necessary or sine qua non for an effect into those that count as causes for purposes of legal responsibility (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Susan Haack (2008). Proving Causation: The Holism of Warrant and the Atomism of Daubert. Journal of Health and Biomedical Law 4:253-289.
    In many toxic-tort cases - notably in Oxendine v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and in Joiner v. G.E., - plaintiffs argue that the expert testimony they wish to present, though no part of it is sufficient by itself to establish causation "by a preponderance of the evidence," is jointly sufficient to meet this standard of proof; and defendants sometimes argue in response that it is a mistake to imagine that a collection of pieces of weak evidence can be any stronger (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  21. Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta (2005). Is the Risk–Liability Theory Compatible with Negligence Law? 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 basis of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22. Antony Honoré (2008). Causation in the Law. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  23. Alex Kaiserman (forthcoming). Necessary Connections in Context. Erkenntnis:1-20.
    This paper combines the ancient idea that causes necessitate their effects with Angelika Kratzer’s semantics of modality. On the resulting view, causal claims quantify over restricted domains of possible worlds determined by two contextually determined parameters. I argue that this view can explain a number of otherwise puzzling features of the way we use and evaluate causal language, including the difference between causing an effect and being a cause of it, the sensitivity of causal judgements to normative facts, and the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Yusuke Kaneko (2012). The Confirmation of Singular Causal Statements by Carnap’s Inductive Logic. Logica Year Book 2011.
    The aim of this paper is to apply inductive logic to the field that, presumably, Carnap never expected: legal causation. Legal causation is expressible in the form of singular causal statements; but it is distinguished from the customary concept of scientific causation, because it is subjective. We try to express this subjectivity within the system of inductive logic. Further, by semantic complement, we compensate a defect found in our application, to be concrete, the impossibility of two-place predicates (for causal relationship) (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Geert Keil (2013). Making Causal Counterfactuals More Singular, and More Appropriate for Use in Law. In Benedikt Kahmen Markus Stepanians (ed.), Causation and Responsibility: Critical Essays. De Gruyter. pp. 157-189.
    Unlike any other monograph on legal liability, Michael S. Moore’s book CAUSATION AND RESPONSIBILITY contains a well-informed and in-depth discussion of the metaphysics of causation. Moore does not share the widespread view that legal scholars should not enter into metaphysical debates about causation. He shows respect for the subtleties of philosophical debates on causal relata, identity conditions for events, the ontological distinctions between events, states of affairs, facts and tropes, and the counterfactual analysis of event causation, and he considers all (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. John-Michael Kuczynski (2016). Right and Wrong. Amazon Digital Services LLC.
    In this book, it is shown that moral integrity is necessary for psychological integrity and, therefore, that it is not possible to live well without living ethically. In the process of establishing this profound truth, Dr. Kuczynski explains what right and wrong are and how we know the difference between the two.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Jos Lehmann, Joost Breuker & Bob Brouwer (2004). Causation in AI and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):279-315.
    Reasoning about causation in fact is an essential element of attributing legal responsibility. Therefore, the automation of the attribution of legal responsibility requires a modelling effort aimed at the following: a thorough understanding of the relation between the legal concepts of responsibility and of causation in fact; a thorough understanding of the relation between causation in fact and the common sense concept of causation; and, finally, the specification of an ontology of the concepts that are minimally required for (automatic) common (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28. Jos Lehmann & Aldo Gangemi (2007). An Ontology of Physical Causation as a Basis for Assessing Causation in Fact and Attributing Legal Responsibility. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (3):301-321.
    Computational machineries dedicated to the attribution of legal responsibility should be based on (or, make use of) a stack of definitions relating the notion of legal responsibility to a number of suitably chosen causal notions. This paper presents a general analysis of legal responsibility and of causation in fact based on Hart and Honoré’s work. Some physical aspects of causation in fact are then treated within the “lite” version of DOLCE foundational ontology written in OWL-DL, a standard description logic for (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  29. Neil MacCormick & Peter Birks (eds.) (1986). The Legal Mind: Essays for Tony Honore. Oxford University Press UK.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Michael S. Moore (2009). Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
    The concept of causation is fundamental to ascribing moral and legal responsibility for events. Yet the precise relationship between causation and responsibility remains unclear. This book clarifies that relationship through an analysis of the best accounts of causation in metaphysics, and a critique of the confusion in legal doctrine.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  31. Michael S. Moore (2008). Causation and Responsibility. Oxford University Press UK.
    The concept of causation is fundamental to ascribing moral and legal responsibility for events. Yet the precise relationship between causation and responsibility remains unclear. This book clarifies that relationship through an analysis of the best accounts of causation in metaphysics, and a critique of the confusion in legal doctrine. The result is a powerful argument in favour of reforming the moral and legal understanding of how and why we attribute responsibility to agents.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Thomas Nadelhoffer & Adam Feltz (2008). The Actor–Observer Bias and Moral Intuitions: Adding Fuel to Sinnott-Armstrong's Fire. Neuroethics 1 (2):133-144.
    In a series of recent papers, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has used findings in social psychology to put pressure on the claim that our moral beliefs can be non-inferentially justified. More specifically, he has suggested that insofar as our moral intuitions are subject to what psychologists call framing effects, this poses a real problem for moral intuitionism. In this paper, we are going to try to add more fuel to the empirical fire that Sinnott-Armstrong has placed under the feet of the intuitionist. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   19 citations  
  33. P. Nowell-Smith (1961). HART, H. L. A. And HONORÉ, A. M. - "Causation in the Law". [REVIEW] Mind 70:553.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Michael S. Pardo & Dennis Patterson (2011). More on the Conceptual and the Empirical: Misunderstandings, Clarifications, and Replies. [REVIEW] Neuroethics 4 (3):215-222.
    At the invitation of the Editors, we wrote an article (entitled, “Minds, Brains, and Norms”) detailing our views on a variety of claims by those arguing for the explanatory power of neuroscience in matters of law and ethics. The Editors invited comments on our article from four distinguished academics (Walter Glannon, Carl Craver, Sarah Robins, and Thomas Nadelhoffer) and invited our reply to their critique of our views. In this reply to our commentators, we correct some potential misunderstandings of our (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Dennis Patterson (2011). Minds, Brains, and Norms. Neuroethics 4 (3):179-190.
    Arguments for the importance of neuroscience reach across many disciplines. Advocates of neuroscience have made wide-ranging claims for neuroscience in the realms of ethics, value, and law. In law, for example, many scholars have argued for an increased role for neuroscientific evidence in the assessment of criminal responsibility. In this article, we take up claims for the explanatory role of neuroscience in matters of morals and law. Drawing on our previous work together, we assess the cogency of neuroscientific explanations of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. C. G. Pulman (2014). 'Introduction'. In Hart on Responsibility. Palgrave-Macmillan.
  37. C. G. Pulman (2014). Voluntary Interventions. In Hart on Responsibility. Palgrave-Macmillan.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. D. D. Raphael (1962). Causation in the Law. By H. L. A. Hart and A. M. Honors. (Clarendon Press: Oxford University Press, 1959. Pp. Xxxii + 454. Price 55s.). [REVIEW] Philosophy 37 (139):83-.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Kevin Reuter, Lara Kirfel, Raphael van Riel & Luca Barlassina (2014). The Good, the Bad, and the Timely: How Temporal Order and Moral Judgment Influence Causal Selection. Frontiers in Psychology 5:1-10.
    Causal selection is the cognitive process through which one or more elements in a complex causal structure are singled out as actual causes of a certain effect. In this paper, we report on an experiment in which we investigated the role of moral and temporal factors in causal selection. Our results are as follows. First, when presented with a temporal chain in which two human agents perform the same action one after the other, subjects tend to judge the later agent (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40. Robert C. Robinson (2010). The Role of Causation in Decision of Tort Law. Journal of Law, Development and Politics 1 (2).
    Tort law depends on three key concepts: causation, responsibility, and fault. However, I argue that the three key concepts are neither necessary, nor sufficient, for tort.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Filippo Santoni de Sio (2008). Causation, Fault, and Responsibility: Hart and Honoré's Legacy. Rivista di Filosofia 99 (2):263-290.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. Jonathan Schaffer (2012). Disconnection and Responsibility. Legal Theory 18 (Special Issue 04):399-435.
    Michael Moore’s Causation and Responsibility offers an integrated conception of the law, morality, and metaphysics, centered on the notion of causation, grounded in a detailed knowledge of case law, and supported on every point by cogent argument. This is outstanding work. It is a worthy successor to Harte and Honoré’s classic Causation in the Law, and I expect that it will guide discussion for many years to come.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  43. Jonathan Schaffer (2010). Contrastive Causation in the Law. Legal Theory 16 (4):259-297.
    What conception of causation is at work in the law? I argue that the law implicitly relies on a contrastive conception. In a liability case where the defendant's breach of duty must be shown to have caused the plaintiff's damages, it is not enough to consider what would have happened if the cause had not occurredthe law requires us to look to a specific replacement for the effect, which in this case is the hypothetical outcome in which the plaintiff came (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  44. Jane Stapleton (2008). Choosing What We Mean by'Causation'in the Law. Missouri Law Review 73 (2):433--480.
    In a radical new account of "causation" in the Law, I explain that "causation" is troublesome for lawyers because it is a labile term ordinary people use to express diverse information about the world. Though clarity would be promoted if we used the term "causation" to refer to the information yielded by only one type of inquiry, in the past lawyers have used the term to refer to more than one type of enquiry, while philosophers often have not specified an (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  45. Helen Steward (2014). Causing Things and Doing Things. In C. G. Pulman (ed.), Hart on Responsibility.
  46. Judith Jarvis Thomson (2008). Some Reflections on Hart and Honore, Causation in the Law. In Matthew H. Kramer (ed.), The Legacy of H.L.A. Hart: Legal, Political, and Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47. Stephen J. Toope (2009). Internationalism and Global Norms for Neuroethics. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (1):1 – 2.
  48. Stacey A. Tovino (2008). The Impact of Neuroscience on Health Law. Neuroethics 1 (2):101-117.
    Advances in neuroscience have implications for criminal law as well as civil and regulatory law, including health, disability, and benefit law. The role of the behavioral and brain sciences in health insurance claims, the mental health parity debate, and disability proceedings is examined.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  49. Achille C. Varzi (2006). The Talk I Was Supposed to Give…. In Andrea Bottani & Richard Davies (eds.), Modes of Existence: Papers in Ontology and Philosophical Logic. Ontos Verlag. pp. 131–152.
    Assuming that events form a genuine ontological category, shall we say that a good inventory of the world ought to include “negative” events—failures, omissions, things that didn’t happen—along with positive ones? I argue that we shouldn’t. Talk of non-occurring events is like talk of non-existing objects and should not be taken at face value. We often speak as though there were such things, but deep down we want our words to be interpreted in such a way as to avoid serious (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  50. Nicole A. Vincent (2005). Compensation for Mere Exposure to Risk. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 29:89-101.
    It could be argued that tort law is failing, and arguably an example of this failure is the recent public liability and insurance (‘PL&I’) crisis. A number of solutions have been proposed, but ultimately the chosen solution should address whatever we take to be the cause of this failure. On one account, the PL&I crisis is a result of an unwarranted expansion of the scope of tort law. Proponents of this position sometimes argue that the duty of care owed by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 52