Abstract
AbstractIt is commonly held that we wrong someone if we punish them without first determining whether they are guilty through the process of a sufficiently fair and reliable procedure. This wrong is best explained by pre-institutional moral procedural rights. Recently, Christopher Heath Wellman has argued for the skeptical conclusion that there are no such rights, challenging a widely held orthodoxy. I propose two novel grounds for pre-institutional moral procedural rights and so answer Wellman's skepticism. First, we have rights not to be subject to punitive systems that do not include specific sorts of reliable procedures because otherwise we are subject to unreasonable risks of undeserved punishment. Second, not only do we have rights that others not harm us or unreasonably risk harming us, we have rights that they control for avoiding wrongfully harming us across relevant close possible worlds.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference11 articles.
1. Indirect Consequentialism, Friendship, and the Problem of Alienation
2. Towards a Right Against Risking
3. Samaritanism and the Duty to Obey the Law;Wellman;Christopher Heath Wellman and A. John Simmons, Is There a Duty to Obey the Law?,2005
4. In Defense of Objectivism about Moral Obligation
5. Locke and the Right to Punish;Simmons;Phil. and Pub. Aff.,1991
Cited by
2 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
1. Principles of Recognition: Or How to Move Forward?;An Interdisciplinary Journey from Non-Discrimination to Collective Rights;2024
2. PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND FACTUAL ACCURACY;Legal Theory;2020-06