Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):985-997 (2016)

Authors
Tom Parr
University of Essex
Abstract
It is common to focus on the duties of the wrongdoer in cases that involve injustice. Presumably, the wrongdoer owes her victim an apology for having wronged her and perhaps compensation for having harmed her. But, these are not the only duties that may arise. Are other beneficiaries of an injustice permitted to retain the fruits of the injustice? If not, who becomes entitled to those funds? In recent years, the Connection Account has emerged as an influential account that purports to explain cases such as Embezzlement. This account holds that benefiting from injustice can give rise to a corrective duty - that is, a duty of compensation - owed specifically to the victim of the injustice from which the recipient benefits. This duty is grounded in the connection between the victim and the beneficiary of a given injustice. This paper has two aims. First, I show that we must reject the Connection Account on the grounds that it risks failing correctly to identify those who become entitled to the fruits of injustice. I achieve this by developing and defending the fairness objection. Second, I offer an alternative account: the Moral Taintedness Account. This account states that, when identifying who is entitled to the fruits of injustice, the cause and the degree of the harm suffered by a victim are both relevant considerations, though it does not matter whether the victim is the victim of the injustice that gave rise to the fruits in question. This account avoids the problem associated with the Connection Account, and yields intuitive conclusions in an important range of test cases.
Keywords Benefiting from injustice  Fairness  Moral taintedness  Compensation
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10677-016-9706-9
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: 72,577
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

Distributing Responsibilities.David Miller - 2001 - Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (4):453–471.
On Benefiting From Injustice.Daniel Butt - 2007 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (1):129-152.
Benefiting From the Wrongdoing of Others.Robert E. Goodin & Christian Barry - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2):363-376.
Killing the Innocent in Self-Defense.Michael Otsuka - 1994 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 23 (1):74-94.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Benefiting From Injustice and the Common-Source Problem.Göran Duus-Otterström - 2017 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (5):1067-1081.
Who Should Pay for Humanitarian Intervention?Fredrik D. Hjorthen - 2017 - European Journal of Political Theory 19 (3):334-353.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Critique of Hermeneutical Injustice.Laura Beeby - 2011 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111 (3pt3):479-486.
Benefiting From Injustice and Brute Luck.Carl Knight - 2013 - Social Theory and Practice 39 (4):581-598.
Exploitation and Injustice.Mikhail Valdman - 2008 - Social Theory and Practice 34 (4):551--572.
Benefiting From the Wrongdoing of Others.Robert E. Goodin & Christian Barry - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2):363-376.
Argumentative Injustice.Patrick Bondy - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (3):263-278.
Moral Perception and Moral Knowledge.Robert Audi - 2010 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 84 (1):79-97.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-03-02

Total views
67 ( #174,699 of 2,533,599 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #199,500 of 2,533,599 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes