The Morality of Tort Law : questions and answers - reprinted in responsibility and fault

"These highly original essays develop themes implicit in Herbert Hart and the author's 'Causation in the Law', 2nd ed. 1985;. Why should we be held responsible for the harm we cause? Honor; ̌proposes a theory of responsibility, 'outcome responsibility', according to which, to be responsible, it is sufficient to have intervened in the world. To act and to be responsible is to assume certain risks, so that responsibility can be a matter of luck rather than fault or merit. Whether responsibility carries with it moral blame or legal liability is an important but secondary question. With the help of this theory he explains the moral basis of strict liability and of tort law in general; shows when there is a moral difference between positive acts and omissions; and indicates the extent to which the circumstances that cause a wrongdoer to do wrong should affect his responsibility."--Bloomsbury Publishing. "These highly original essays develop themes implicit in Herbert Hart and the author's 'Causation in the Law', 2nd ed. 1985;. Why should we be held responsible for the harm we cause? Honoré proposes a theory of responsibility, 'outcome responsibility', according to which, to be responsible, it is sufficient to have intervened in the world. To act and to be responsible is to assume certain risks, so that responsibility can be a matter of luck rather than fault or merit. Whether responsibility carries with it moral blame or legal liability is an important but secondary question. With the help of this theory he explains the moral basis of strict liability and of tort law in general; shows when there is a moral difference between positive acts and omissions; and indicates the extent to which the circumstances that cause a wrongdoer to do wrong should affect his responsibility."--Bloomsbury Publishing. Copyright Contents 1. Introduction CAUSATION RESPONSIBILITY 2. Responsibility and Luck: The Moral Basis of Strict Liability NEGLIGENCE: THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF COMPETENCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUTCOMES AND STRICT LIABILITY CAPACITY AND FREEDOM CONCLUSION 3. Are Omissions Less Culpable? INTRODUCTION POSITIVE ACTS, NOT-DOINGS, OMISSIONS OMISSIONS AND DISTINCT DUTIES RELATIVE CULPABILITY 4. The Morality of Tort Law: Questions and Answers THE QUESTIONS POSED THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED THE ANSWERS SUMMARIZED 5. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions in Tort Law THE CAUSATION STORY: MODERN EFFORTS TO UNRAVEL ITS MYSTERIES COMMON ELEMENTS IN THE NESS AND BUT-FOR THEORIES NESS VERSUS BUT-FOR: DIFFERENCES IN THE THEORIES CONCLUSION 6. Being Responsible and Being a Victim of Circumstance RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINISM AND FREEDOM VICTIMS OF CIRCUMSTANCE 7. Appendix: Can and Can't CONCLUSIONS Index These highly original essays develop themes implicit in Herbert Hart and the author's Causation in the Law (2nd ed. 1985). Why should we be held responsible for the harm we cause? Honoré proposes a theory of responsibility ('outcome responsibility'), according to which, to be responsible, it is sufficient to have intervened in the world. To act and to be responsible is to assume certain risks, so that responsibility can be a matter of luck rather than fault or merit. Whether responsibility carries with it moral blame or legal liability is an important but secondary question. With the help of this theory he explains the moral basis of strict liability and of tort law in general; shows when there is a moral difference between positive acts and omissions; and indicates the extent to which the circumstances that cause a wrongdoer to do wrong should affect his responsibility. "These essays develop themes implicit in Herbert Hart and the author's Causation in the Law. Why should we be held responsible for the harm we cause? Honore proposes a theory of responsibility ('Outcome Responsibility'), according to which, to be responsible, it is sufficient to have intervened in the world. To act and to be responsible is to assume certain risks, so that responsibility can be a matter of luck rather than fault or merit. Whether responsibility carries with it moral blame or legal liability is an important but secondary question. With the help of this theory he explains the moral basis of strict liability and of tort law in general; shows when there is a moral difference between positive acts and omissions; and indicates the extent to which the circumstances that cause a wrongdoer to do wrong should affect his responsibility."--BOOK JACKET Honore (formerly civil law, Oxford U.) develops themes implicit in his and Herbert Hart's 1985 Causation in the Law. In seven essays, he proposes a theory of outcome responsibility that finds intervening in the world to be sufficient to make someone responsible. To act and be responsible is to take risks, he says, so that responsibility can be a matter of luck rather than fault or merit. US distribution is by ISBS. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR