Health Care Management Papers

Document Type

Journal Article

Date of this Version

1-2008

Publication Source

Theoretical Inquiries in Law

Volume

9

Issue

1

Start Page

165

Last Page

184

DOI

10.2202/1565-3404.1172

Abstract

Beginning with the seminal work by Williams and Nagel, moral philosophers have used auto accident hypotheticals to illustrate the phenomenon of moral luck. Moral luck is present in the hypotheticals because (and to the extent that) two equally careless drivers are assessed differently because only one of them caused an accident. This Article considers whether these philosophical discussions might contribute to the public policy debate over compensation for auto accidents. Using liability and insurance practices in the United States as an illustrative example, the Article explains that auto liability insurance substantially mitigates moral luck and argues that, as a result, the moral luck literature is unlikely to make a significant contribution to this public policy debate. The debate would benefit more from philosophical analysis of victims’ luck, which is not as substantially mitigated by liability insurance.

Copyright/Permission Statement

Originally published in Theoretical Inquiries in Law by De Gruyter Publishing © 2008

Comments

At the time of this publication, Tom Baker was affiliated with the University of Connecticut School of Law, but he is now a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania.

Share

COinS
 

Date Posted: 27 November 2017

This document has been peer reviewed.