Negating and Counterbalancing: A Fundamental Distinction in the Concept of a Corrective Duty [Book Review]

Law and Philosophy 33 (2):143-173 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX


I argue in this paper that negating and counterbalancing should be recognised as two fundamental categories of corrective action. First, I show that recognising the distinction helps to avoid confusion when asking normative questions about the justification of imposing corrective duties. Second, I argue that we have moral reasons to care about the difference between negating and counterbalancing detrimental states, and this has implications for permissible action. I then outline some ways in which the discussion helps us explain and justify specific legal remedies in private law, and I conclude by noting some exceptions to the normative priority of negating over counterbalancing



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,031

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

74 (#228,603)

6 months
15 (#184,854)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Wrongful Observation.Helen Frowe & Jonathan Parry - 2019 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 47 (1):104-137.
Agent-Regret, Accidents, and Respect.Jake Wojtowicz - 2022 - The Journal of Ethics 26 (3):501-516.
The persistence of the right of return.Victor Tadros - 2017 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 16 (4):375-399.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references