Abstract
AbstractVicarious responsibility is a notoriously puzzling notion in normative reasoning. In this article we will explore two fundamental issues, which we will call the “explication problem” and the “justification problem”. The former issue concerns how vicarious responsibility can plausibly be defined in terms of other normative concepts. The latter issue concerns how ascriptions of vicarious responsibility can be justified. We will address these two problems by combining ideas taken from legal theory and moral philosophy. Our analysis will emphasise the importance of the voluntary involvement of the normative parties considered liable in a relation with other normative parties who causally contributed to a prohibited state-of-affairs.
Funder
Vedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV
Agentúra Ministerstva Školstva, Vedy, Výskumu a Športu SR
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference22 articles.
1. Blatz, C. (1972). Accountability and answerability. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2(2), 101–120.
2. Brodie, D. (2006). The enterprise and the borrowed worker. Industrial Law Journal, 35(1), 87–92.
3. Brodie, D. (2007). Enterprise liability: Justifying vicarious liability. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 27(3), 493–508.
4. Cane, P. (2002). Responsibility in law and morality. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
5. Cane, P. (2016). Role responsibility. The Journal of Ethics, 20(1–3), 279–298.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献