creators_name: Vincent, Nicole
type: journalp
datestamp: 2001-04-30
lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:54:37
metadata_visibility: show
title: What is at stake in taking responsibility? Lessons from third-party property insurance
ispublished: inpress
subjects: phil-ethics
full_text_status: public
keywords: responsibility, law, liability, insurance, corrective justice, deterrence, retribution, no-fault
abstract: Third-party property insurance (TPPI) protects insured drivers who accidentally damage an
expensive car from the threat of financial ruin. Perhaps more importantly though, TPPI also protects
the victims whose losses might otherwise go uncompensated. Ought responsible drivers therefore
take out TPPI?

This paper begins by enumerating some reasons for why a rational person might believe that they
have a moral obligation to take out TPPI. It will be argued that if what is at stake in taking
responsibility is the ability to compensate our possible future victims for their losses, then it might
initially seem that most people should be thankful for the availability of relatively inexpensive TPPI
because without it they may not have sufficient funds to do the right thing and compensate their
victims in the event of an accident.

But is the ability to compensate one's victims really what is at stake in taking responsibility? The
second part of this paper will critically examine the arguments for the above position, and it will
argue that these arguments do not support the conclusion that injurers should compensate their
victims for their losses, and hence that drivers need not take out TPPI in order to be responsible.
Further still, even if these arguments did support the conclusion that injurers should compensate
their victims for their losses, then (perhaps surprisingly) nobody should to be allowed to take out
TPPI because doing so would frustrate justice.
date: 2001
date_type: published
publication: Business and Professional Ethics Journal
volume: 20
publisher: Centre for Applied Philosophy, University of Florida
refereed: TRUE
referencetext: Jonathan Glover, Responsibility, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1970, p 19.

Greg Pynt, 'Recent Developments in Liability Law - A Simple Plan', Insurance Law Journal, Vol 11:1, Sydney, Butterworths, 1999, p 31.

Jules Coleman, 'The morality of strict tort liability', in Jules Coleman (ed.), Markets, Morals and the Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p 181 (henceforth cited as Coleman 1 ).

Judith Jarvis Thomson, 'A Defence of Abortion', in John Arthur (ed), Morality and Moral Controversies, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1981, p 190-191.

Jeffrie Murphy & Jules Coleman, Philosophy of Law: An Introduction to Jurisprudence, Colorado, Westview Press, 1990, p120-1 (henceforth cited as Murphy & Coleman).

John Kekes, entry on 'desert', in Ted Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 193.

François Ewald, 'Insurance and risk', in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon & Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991, p 207.

Clifford C Kasdorf, 'Protection Against The Uninsured Motorist', Insurance Counsel Journal, Wisconsin, International Association of Insurance Counsel, 1964, p 675.

Professor Craig Brown, 'No-fault Car Insurance in Ontario: The Latest Stop on a Long Journey', Insurance Law Journal, Vol 3:1, Sydney, Butterworths, 1990, p 18-33.

Jules Coleman, 'On the Moral Argument for the Fault System', The Journal of Philosophy,NewYork,Comumbia University, 1974, p 475.

Jules Coleman, 'Rethinking the theory of legal rights', in Jules Coleman (ed.), Markets, Morals and the Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p 28-63.

citation:   Vincent, Nicole  (2001) What is at stake in taking responsibility? Lessons from third-party property insurance.  [Journal (Paginated)]    (In Press)  
document_url: http://cogprints.org/1468/3/What_is_at_stake_in_taking_responsibility.pdf