Philosophers disagree about whether outcome luck can affect an agent's “moral responsibility.” Focusing on responsibility's “negative side,” some maintain, and others deny, that an action's results bear constitutively on how “blameworthy” the actor is, and on how much blame or punishment they “deserve.” Crucially, both sides to the debate assume that an actor's blameworthiness and negative desert are equally affected—or unaffected—by an action's results. This article challenges that previously overlooked assumption, arguing that blameworthiness and desert are distinct moral notions that (...) serve distinct normative functions: blameworthiness serves aliabilityfunction (removing a bar to otherwise impermissible treatments), whereas desert serves afavoringfunction (contributing new value to states of affairs, or providing new reasons for responsive treatments). Having distinguished (negative) desert from blameworthiness, the article proposes a novel resolution to the outcome‐luck debate: that results do not affect an agent's liability to blame, but do affect the amount and severity of blame to which the agent is justly liable, including by affecting the severity of blame that the agent deserves. (shrink)

This review essay of Victor Tadros’s new book, “The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law,” responds to Tadros’s energetic and sophisticated attacks on retributivist justifications for criminal punishment. I argue, in a nutshell, that those attacks fail. In defending retributivism, however, I also sketch original views on two questions that retributivism must address but that many or most retributivists have skated past. First, what do wrongdoers deserve – to suffer? to be punished? something else? Second, what does (...) it mean for them to deserve it? That is, what is the normative force or significance of valid desert claims, either with respect to retributivist desert in particular or with respect to all forms of desert? Because the answers that this essay offers are preliminary, the essay also serves as a partial blueprint for further work by criminal law theorists with retributivist sympathies. (shrink)

Philosophers of criminal punishment widely agree that criminal punishment should be “proportional” to the “seriousness” of the offense. But this apparent consensus is only superficial, masking significant dissensus below the surface. Proposed proportionality principles differ on several distinct dimensions, including: regarding which offense or offender properties determine offense “seriousness” and thus constitute a proportionality relatum; regarding whether punishment is objectionably disproportionate only when excessively severe, or also when excessively lenient; and regarding whether the principle can deliver absolute judgments, or only (...) comparative ones. This essay proposes that these differences cannot be successfully adjudicated, and one candidate proportionality principle preferred over its rivals, in the abstract; a proportionality principle only makes sense as an integrated part of a more complete justificatory theory of criminal punishment. It then sketches a proportionality principle that best fits the responsibility-constrained pluralist theories of criminal punishment that currently predominate. The proportionality principle it favors provides that punishments should not be disproportionately severe, in noncomparative terms, relative to an agent’s culpability in relation to their wrongdoing. (shrink)

Philosophy of sport orthodoxy maintains the following three theses: (1) all sports (or all refereed sports) are games; (2) games are as Suits defined them; and (3) sprints are sports. This article argues that these three theses cannot be jointly maintained and offers exploratory thoughts regarding what might follow.

Although risky decision-making has been posited to contribute to the maladaptive behavior of individuals with psychopathic tendencies, the performance of psychopathic groups on a common task of risky decision-making, the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT; Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Anderson, 1994), has been equivocal. Different aspects of psychopathy (personality traits, antisocial deviance) and/or moderating variables may help to explain these inconsistent findings. In a sample of college students (N = 129, age 18–27), we examined the relationship between primary and secondary psychopathic (...) features and IGT performance. A measure of impulsivity was included to investigate its potential as a moderator. In a joint model including main effects and interactions between primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy and impulsivity, only secondary psychopathy was significantly related to risky IGT performance, and this effect was not moderated by the other variables. This finding supports the growing literature suggesting that secondary psychopathy is a better predictor of decision-making problems than the primary psychopathic personality traits of lack of empathy and remorselessness. (shrink)

One of the most fundamental questions in general jurisprudence concerns what makes it the case that the law has the content that it does. It is the job of theories of legal content to provide answers. This article offers a novel positivist theory of legal content. According to the theory it calls “principled positivism,” legal practices ground legal principles, and legal principles determine legal rules. This two-level account of the determination of legal content differs from Hart’s celebrated theory in two (...) essential respects: in relaxing Hart’s requirement that fundamental legal notions depend on judicial consensus; and in assigning weighted contributory legal norms—“principles”—an essential role in the determination of legal rights, duties, powers, and permissions. Drawing on concrete examples from American statutory and constitutional law, the article shows how the version of positivism that it introduces and defends betters Hart’s in meeting the most formidable challenges to positivism that Dworkin marshaled. The article also explains why the revisions it advances matter, legally as well as philosophically. (shrink)

Andrew Simester’s new book, Fundamentals of Criminal Law: Responsibility, Culpability, and Wrongdoing, is a masterful analysis of the doctrines of the general part of the criminal law and the multiple, overlapping functions that those doctrines serve. Along the way, Simester makes explicit what criminal law theorists routinely presuppose—that the ordinary words “blameworthiness” and “culpability” pick out the same moral concept. This essay argues that this assumed equivalence is mistaken: two concepts are in play, not one. Roughly, to be blameworthy is (...) to be justly liable to blaming practices in virtue of being at fault, and to be culpable is to act in a fashion that manifests or issues from insufficient concern for morally weighty interests. Culpability is not identical to blameworthiness, but rather a ground of blameworthiness: to be culpable is one way to be at fault, thus one way to be blameworthy. More importantly, culpability is not the exclusive ground of blameworthiness; an agent can be at fault, hence blameworthy, without being culpable. This essay defends these conceptual claims and draws forth some implications for two theses that Simester advances: that it is morally permissible to punish persons for criminal negligence and that it is unjust to punish persons who don’t deserve it. (shrink)

Los teóricos estadounidenses conocidos como “los nuevos originalistas” han propuesto en los años recientes una visión de la adjudicación constitucional y de la implementación constitucional extra-judicial que concede un lugar central a la distinción entre “interpretación constitucional” y “construcción constitucional.” La primera es entendida como el proceso consistente en determinar el significado lingüístico del texto constitucional mientras que la construcción es el proceso consistente en traducir el significado lingüístico a tests o reglas jurídicas, paradigmáticamente, aunque de forma no exclusiva, para (...) hacer más preciso un texto vago. Este artículo, escrito en el contexto de un simposio sobre la distinción interpretación/construcción en la teoría constitucional, hace una evaluación crítica de la coherencia y utilidad de cincelar de este modo el espacio constitucional de implementación. Argumenta que suplementar la interpretación constitucional con la noción de construcción constitucional no salva al originalismo de los muchos cuestionamientos que enfrenta; que la distinción entre la determinación del significado lingüístico y la construcción de tests o reglas jurídicas no es particularmente útil; y que la distinción más clara en este ámbito es la que distingue entre la determinación del significado o contenido jurídico de un texto y la formulación de doctrina para implementar o administrar ese significado jurídico. Ésa es la distinción que fundamenta la distinción que yo y otros académicos hemos trazado con anterioridad entre “proposiciones constitucionales operativas” y “reglas constitucionales de decisión.”. (shrink)

Debates over the proper theory of, or approach to, constitutional interpretation rage through many Western constitutional democracies. Although the number of distinct theories, if finely individuated, might match the number of theorists who have entered the fray, it has become customary to group the competing accounts into two broad camps, commonly labeled ‘originalism’ and ‘non‐originalism’. This article presents an overview of non‐originalist approaches to constitutional interpretation. However, because non‐originalism is defined as the negation of originalism – that is, diverse theories (...) are grouped together as ‘non‐originalist,’ not so much by what they commonly affirm, as by what they commonly deny – the project naturally focuses as well on originalist theories of interpretation. After specifying what originalism maintains, and what objections it encounters, the essay sketches some of the more prominent non‐originalist approaches to constitutional interpretation and identifies some of the criticisms they face and worries they provoke. Preliminarily, it explains why ‘theories of constitutional interpretation’ constitute only a subset of ‘theories of judicial review.’. (shrink)

Philosophers of criminal punishment disagree about whether infliction of punishment for negligence can be morally justified. One contending view holds that it cannot be because punishment requires culpability and culpability requires, at a minimum, advertence to the facts that make one’s conduct wrongful. Larry Alexander and Kim Ferzan are prominent champions of this position. This essay challenges that view and their arguments for it. Invoking a conceptual distinction between an agent’s being _blameworthy_ for an act and their _deserving punishment_ (or (...) suffering) for that act, it explains that an agent can be blameworthy for negligent conduct, and thus liable to reasonable blaming practices, even if negligence is not culpable, hence not sufficient to ground negative desert. Turning from conceptual inquiry to substantive questions of political morality, it then argues that a faulty actor’s lack of culpability does not render them immune from just punishment, but does significantly limit the severity of punishment that may be inflicted, for punishment should not be disproportionately severe relative to an agent’s culpability in relation to wrongdoing. (shrink)

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Volume 104, Issue 3, Page 784-791, May 2022.