Advanced

”Provocation and the Mitigation of Responsibility”

Egonsson, Dan LU (2014) In Johanssonian Investigations p.179-190
Abstract
In this article I discuss the relationship between the victim’s and the perpetrator’s guilt in a rape situation. Does recognition of the victim’s guilt automatically remove (any) responsibility from the perpetrator? One way of arguing that is does is to lean on an expanded version of the principle that “ought implies can”, which implies that the magnitude of the difficulty involved in abstaining from a certain action will affect the agent’s responsibility for it. This idea is firmly established in both common sense and moral practice, but I believe that it rests on the mistaken view that can is a gradable concept. Can is, I think, vague but categorical. This means that even if (and I say if) the perpetrator were provoked to some degree by... (More)
In this article I discuss the relationship between the victim’s and the perpetrator’s guilt in a rape situation. Does recognition of the victim’s guilt automatically remove (any) responsibility from the perpetrator? One way of arguing that is does is to lean on an expanded version of the principle that “ought implies can”, which implies that the magnitude of the difficulty involved in abstaining from a certain action will affect the agent’s responsibility for it. This idea is firmly established in both common sense and moral practice, but I believe that it rests on the mistaken view that can is a gradable concept. Can is, I think, vague but categorical. This means that even if (and I say if) the perpetrator were provoked to some degree by his victim, this would not annul his responsibility so far as the expanded version of the principle is concerned. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Provocation, rape, responsibility
in
Johanssonian Investigations
editor
Christer, Svennerlind; Jan, Almäng and Rögnvaldur, Ingthorsson
pages
179 - 190
publisher
Ontos Verlag
ISBN
978-3-86838-190-0
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
c510fdce-f059-4af2-8e1e-a20b286621e8 (old id 4254689)
date added to LUP
2014-01-28 13:55:15
date last changed
2016-04-16 07:49:09
@misc{c510fdce-f059-4af2-8e1e-a20b286621e8,
  abstract     = {In this article I discuss the relationship between the victim’s and the perpetrator’s guilt in a rape situation. Does recognition of the victim’s guilt automatically remove (any) responsibility from the perpetrator? One way of arguing that is does is to lean on an expanded version of the principle that “ought implies can”, which implies that the magnitude of the difficulty involved in abstaining from a certain action will affect the agent’s responsibility for it. This idea is firmly established in both common sense and moral practice, but I believe that it rests on the mistaken view that can is a gradable concept. Can is, I think, vague but categorical. This means that even if (and I say if) the perpetrator were provoked to some degree by his victim, this would not annul his responsibility so far as the expanded version of the principle is concerned.},
  author       = {Egonsson, Dan},
  editor       = {Christer, Svennerlind and Jan, Almäng and Rögnvaldur, Ingthorsson},
  isbn         = {978-3-86838-190-0},
  keyword      = {Provocation,rape,responsibility},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {179--190},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0xad06c80)},
  series       = {Johanssonian Investigations},
  title        = {”Provocation and the Mitigation of Responsibility”},
  year         = {2014},
}