Aspiration, execution, and controversy: Reply to my critics

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

I respond to Michael Zimmerman and Gideon Yaffe, both of whom have written thoughtful and constructive criticisms of my ‘‘Ignorance of Law’’. Zimmerman believes I do not go far enough in exculpating morally ignorant wrongdoers; he accuses me of lacking the courage of my convictions in allowing exceptions for reckless wrongdoers (who I allege to have a lesser degree of blameworthiness than those who are knowledgeable) and for willfully ignorant wrongdoers (who I allege to be as blameworthy as those who are knowledgeable). Yaffe, by contrast, thinks I rely on a defective foundation of moral blameworthiness. He proposes an alternative account he alleges to conform more closely to common sense. In responding to both critics, I emphasize that our points of agreement may be more significant than our disagreements.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)351-362
Number of pages12
JournalCriminal Law and Philosophy
Volume12
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

critic
criticism
Blameworthiness
Aspiration
Conviction
Ignorance
Common Sense
Criticism
Courage

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Philosophy
  • Law

Keywords

  • Desert
  • Exculpation
  • Ignorance of law
  • Overcriminalization
  • Reason responsiveness
  • Recklessness
  • Wilful ignorance

Cite this

@article{1385c1cad06f4f1dba227b5df87d2122,
title = "Aspiration, execution, and controversy: Reply to my critics",
abstract = "I respond to Michael Zimmerman and Gideon Yaffe, both of whom have written thoughtful and constructive criticisms of my ‘‘Ignorance of Law’’. Zimmerman believes I do not go far enough in exculpating morally ignorant wrongdoers; he accuses me of lacking the courage of my convictions in allowing exceptions for reckless wrongdoers (who I allege to have a lesser degree of blameworthiness than those who are knowledgeable) and for willfully ignorant wrongdoers (who I allege to be as blameworthy as those who are knowledgeable). Yaffe, by contrast, thinks I rely on a defective foundation of moral blameworthiness. He proposes an alternative account he alleges to conform more closely to common sense. In responding to both critics, I emphasize that our points of agreement may be more significant than our disagreements.",
keywords = "Desert, Exculpation, Ignorance of law, Overcriminalization, Reason responsiveness, Recklessness, Wilful ignorance",
author = "Douglas Husak",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11572-017-9446-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "351--362",
journal = "Criminal Law and Philosophy",
issn = "1871-9791",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

Aspiration, execution, and controversy : Reply to my critics. / Husak, Douglas.

In: Criminal Law and Philosophy, Vol. 12, No. 2, 01.06.2018, p. 351-362.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Aspiration, execution, and controversy

T2 - Reply to my critics

AU - Husak, Douglas

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - I respond to Michael Zimmerman and Gideon Yaffe, both of whom have written thoughtful and constructive criticisms of my ‘‘Ignorance of Law’’. Zimmerman believes I do not go far enough in exculpating morally ignorant wrongdoers; he accuses me of lacking the courage of my convictions in allowing exceptions for reckless wrongdoers (who I allege to have a lesser degree of blameworthiness than those who are knowledgeable) and for willfully ignorant wrongdoers (who I allege to be as blameworthy as those who are knowledgeable). Yaffe, by contrast, thinks I rely on a defective foundation of moral blameworthiness. He proposes an alternative account he alleges to conform more closely to common sense. In responding to both critics, I emphasize that our points of agreement may be more significant than our disagreements.

AB - I respond to Michael Zimmerman and Gideon Yaffe, both of whom have written thoughtful and constructive criticisms of my ‘‘Ignorance of Law’’. Zimmerman believes I do not go far enough in exculpating morally ignorant wrongdoers; he accuses me of lacking the courage of my convictions in allowing exceptions for reckless wrongdoers (who I allege to have a lesser degree of blameworthiness than those who are knowledgeable) and for willfully ignorant wrongdoers (who I allege to be as blameworthy as those who are knowledgeable). Yaffe, by contrast, thinks I rely on a defective foundation of moral blameworthiness. He proposes an alternative account he alleges to conform more closely to common sense. In responding to both critics, I emphasize that our points of agreement may be more significant than our disagreements.

KW - Desert

KW - Exculpation

KW - Ignorance of law

KW - Overcriminalization

KW - Reason responsiveness

KW - Recklessness

KW - Wilful ignorance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030688291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030688291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11572-017-9446-5

DO - 10.1007/s11572-017-9446-5

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85030688291

VL - 12

SP - 351

EP - 362

JO - Criminal Law and Philosophy

JF - Criminal Law and Philosophy

SN - 1871-9791

IS - 2

ER -