« Retributive Ethics | Main | Darwin and his Defenders »

April 23, 2010



Claiming that A has a dutyR to B to φ if and only if it is morally permissible for B to force A to φ, appears to present a choice between picking and choosing the kinds of injuries that generate a dutyR for A to abstain from inflicting them upon B, and subsuming B's making a civil claim against A under the rubric of permissible force. Even in the state of nature, I would be hard pressed to justify cold-cocking my neighbor's delinquent squirt for encroaching upon my personal space by micturating on my shoe.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)