Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Crime, Punishment, and ResponsibilityThe Jurisprudence of Antony Duff$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Rowan Cruft, Matthew H. Kramer, and Mark R. Reiff

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199592814

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592814.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 28 November 2020

The Culpability of Negligence

The Culpability of Negligence

Chapter:
(p.311) 18 The Culpability of Negligence
Source:
Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility
Author(s):

Michael S. Moore

Heidi M. Hurd

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592814.003.0018

Negligence is a problematic basis for being morally blamed and punished for having caused some harm, because in such cases there is no choice to cause, allow, or risk causing or allowing, such harm to occur. The leading two theories as to why inadvertent risk creation can be blameworthy despite the lack of culpable choice are that in such cases there is blame for: (1) an unexercised capacity to have adverted to the risk; or (2) a defect in character explaining why one did not advert to the risk. Neither of these is found to be an adequate basis for blaming inadvertent harm-causing. Three additional theories are briefly mentioned, according to which blame is assigned for: (3) culpably acquiring or failing to rid oneself of defects of character at some earlier time (the ‘tracing strategies’); (4) flawed use of those practical reasoning capacities that make one the person one is; or (5) chosen violation of per se rules about known-to-be-available precautions. Although each of these five theories can justify blame in some cases of negligence, none can justify blame in all cases intuitively thought to be cases of negligence, nor can any of these five theories show why inadvertent creation of an unreasonable risk, pure and simple, can be blameworthy.

Keywords:   negligence, recklessness, advertence, capacity, inadvertence, character

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .