Punishing ‘Dirty Hands’—Three Justifications

Wijze, Stephen De

doi:10.1007/s10677-012-9396-x

Cited by 24 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By bringing public attention to the way in which important moral and social standards have been the violated, and to the harm done to the victims, as well as by putting the offender on the record as admitting responsibility, an apology will be able to strengthen the case for having to mitigate or make up for the injustice in tangible ways. As mentioned earlier, a variety of writers (de Wijze, 2013;Digeser, 1998;Levy, 2007;Roadevin, 2019) have hinted at a need for reparations in the wake of dirty hands, so apologies could play the important function of initiating a process of providing practical redress to those who have been harmed by a dirty-handed decision.…”

Section: Official Apologies As Reparations For Dirty Handsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Official apologies as reparations for dirty hands

Nick

2022

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Official Apologies As Reparations For Dirty Handsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Official apologies as reparations for dirty hands

Nick

2022

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the case of the 13 th Amendment there is no doubt that the policy was net beneficial but the means used to achieve that end were, according to Stevens, ignoble. This version of the objection seems like a variation of the ‘dirty hands’ problems that one findsin many political contexts (Walzer, 1973; Wijze, 2013). This is, however, a mistaken interpretation of the corruption objection.…”

Section: Corruption and Sinceritymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethics of Legislative Vote Trading

Thrasher

2015

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is argued in this article that legislative vote trading by representatives is both ethically permissible and may be ethically required in many cases. This conclusion is an implication of a thin, general account of representation that requires representatives to vote on the basis of the perceived preferences or interests of their constituents. These special duties arise from a thin account of representation and create a weak, defeasible duty for representatives to engage in what they believe will be beneficial vote trades. After establishing this claim, the article considers two objections to this duty. One is based on equating legislative vote trading with corruption, and the other argues that logrolling violates the 'duty of civility'. Neither objection undermines the main claim that there is a weak duty to engage in logrolling. Nevertheless, the implications of this duty may be troubling for other reasons.

show abstract

“…Suppose A has some pro ta nto reason to not-φ, but A is all-things-considered justified in φ-ing, and φing involves seriously wronging someone. Some argue we are still required to (sinlessly) sanction A for φ -ing (see e.g.,de Wijze 2013 andCorvino 2015; cf. Roadevin 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Five problems for the moral consensus about sins

Ashfield

2021

Int J Philos Relig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of Christian theologians and philosophers have been critical of overly moralizing approaches to the doctrine of sin, but nearly all Christian thinkers maintain that moral fault is necessary or sufficient for sin to obtain. Call this the "Moral Consensus." I begin by clarifying the relevance of impurities to the biblical cataloguing of sins. I then present four extensional problems for the Moral Consensus on sin, based on the biblical catalogue of sins: (1) moral overdemandingness, (2) agential unfairness, (3) moral repugnance, and (4) moral atrocity. Next, I survey several partial solutions to these problems, suggested by the recent philosophical literature. Then I evaluate two largely unexplored solutions: (a) genuine sin dilemmas and (b) defeasible sinfulness. I argue that (a) creates more problems than it solves and that, while (b) is wellmotivated and solves or eases each of the above problems, (b) leaves many biblical ordinances about sin morally misleading, creating (5) a pedagogical problem of evil. I conclude by arguing that (5) places hefty explanatory burdens on those who would appeal to (b) to resolve the four extensional problems discussed in this paper. So Christian thinkers may need to consider a more radical separation of sin and moral fault.Ingolf Dalferth (1984) distinguishes the ontological question 'what is sin?' from the criteriological question 'what is sinful?'. Much theological discourse on the doctrine of sin concerns the ontological question of sin's nature or essence, but recent philosophical discussions of sin have often grappled with the criteriological issue of which acts, attitudes, or states of affairs should count as sinful or fall under sin's extension, whatever sin turns out to be. In this paper, I identify problems that emerge from answers to the criteriological question of how sins are extensionally related to moral faults. My primary aim is to engage critically with recent relevant Englishspeaking philosophical scholarship, so I will not attempt an in-depth historical study of how theologians or philosophers have answered this question throughout the ages, and I will not address cognate theological topics, like soteriology. However, in setting up the problems I discuss, 1 I will refer primarily to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, because these are the primary authoritative canons of texts informing the religious traditions, in which recent English-speaking philosophical discussion of sin has taken place, and because the Christian traditions and their roots in Jewish traditions are the ones I know best.(237), but "sinful acts" is the narrower category, because it includes only conscious, voluntary, blameworthy offences that are objectively against God.Super-Moralists, in contrast, retain Moral Sufficiency while rejecting Moral Necessity, arguing that while all moral faults are sins, some sins are not moral faults. This combination of commitments seems to have been espoused by several prominent theologians. For example, Emil Brunner writes: "It is perfectly possi...

show abstract

Punishing ‘Dirty Hands’—Three Justifications

Cited by 24 publications

References 20 publications

Official apologies as reparations for dirty hands

Official apologies as reparations for dirty hands

The Ethics of Legislative Vote Trading

Five problems for the moral consensus about sins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About