Compensation and Continuity

Abstract

This article examines accounts of the moral basis of compensatory duties that explain such duties as the continuation, in some way, of the pre-wrong normative situation. I identify, contrast, and assess three versions of this view—duty continuity, right continuity, and reasons continuity. I argue that each version is defensible, once properly articulated. The article responds to a range of objections to these views that have not received much critical attention by their proponents.

Corrective Duties/Corrective Justice

“…At least some of them went at least partly unconformed to when I failed to perform my primary duty. Just as they shaped my primary duty, so they now shape my fallback secondary duty” (Gardner, 2018, p. 119).” “The reason or reasons grounding the duty breached continue post‐breach, and next‐best conformity to those reasons may require compensation” (Steel, 2020, p. 259). (Emphasis added.…”

“…I take the distinction between rights-continuity and reasons-continuity from(Steel 2020).15 In later work, Gardner re-elaborated: "[a] duty of repair is none other than a duty to mitigate, so far as possible, one's non-performance of one's original duty" (Gardner 2018, 100).16 Scheme derived from (Fornaroli, [online first]).…”