Philosophical Studies 175 (9):2169-2189 (2018)

Abstract
I will discuss the relationship between two different accounts of remedial duty ascriptions. According to one account, the beneficiary account, individuals who benefit innocently from injustices ought to bear remedial responsibilities towards the victims of these injustices. According to another account, the causal account, individuals who caused injustices ought to bear remedial duties towards the victim. In this paper, I examine the relation between the principles central to these accounts: the Beneficiary Pays Principle and the well-established principle of Strict Liability in law. I argue that both principles display a strong yet unexplored similarity as they make certain kinds of causal connection sufficient for incurring liability. Because of this similarity, I suggest that insights into the Beneficiary Pays Principle can be gained from exploring its relation with Strict Liability. In particular, I examine two new positive arguments that could be adapted to support of the Beneficiary Pays Principle: the Minimising Injustice Argument and the Normative Connection Argument. However, I’ll show that only one of those arguments, namely the Normative Connection Argument, can truly support the Beneficiary Pays Principle. I conclude that, if you endorse the Normative Connection Argument for Strict Liability, you have at least a strong prima facie reason to endorse the parallel argument for the Beneficiary Pays Principle.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-017-0953-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,756
External links

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

Causation as Influence.David K. Lewis - 2000 - Journal of Philosophy 97 (4):182-197.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality.Peter Singer - 1972 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (3):229-243.
Causation.David K. Lewis - 1973 - Journal of Philosophy 70 (17):556-567.
Moral Luck.B. A. O. Williams & T. Nagel - 1976 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes( 50:115-151.
Distributing Responsibilities.David Miller - 2001 - Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (4):453–471.

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Strict Moral Liability.Justin A. Capes - 2019 - Social Philosophy and Policy 36 (1):52-71.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Scepticism About Beneficiary Pays: A Critique.Christian Barry & Robert Kirby - 2015 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 (4):285-300.
Scepticism About Beneficiary Pays: A Critique.Christian Barry & Robert Kirby - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (3):282-300.
Should the Beneficiaries Pay?Robert Huseby - 2015 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14 (2):209-225.
Should the Beneficiaries Pay?Robert Huseby - 2015 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14 (2):1470594-13506366.
The Beneficiary Pays Principle and Luck Egalitarianism.Robert Huseby - 2016 - Journal of Social Philosophy 47 (3):332-349.
Legal and Moral Responsibility.Antony Duff - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (6):978-986.
Strict Joint and Several Liability and Justice.D. R. Cooley - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 47 (3):199-208.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-08-18

Total views
31 ( #313,598 of 2,333,922 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #152,016 of 2,333,922 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes