@article{husak_is_2023,
	title = {Is {Fair} {Opportunity} a {Comprehensive} {Theory} of {Responsibility}?},
	issn = {18719791},
	url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85159431185&doi=10.1007%2fs11572-023-09676-6&partnerID=40&md5=6b46abb0988e5e2e609b3c4a7c675e82},
	doi = {10.1007/s11572-023-09676-6},
	abstract = {I challenge the adequacy of David Brink’s “master principle” of culpability. I allege that it fails to account for the moral relevance of ignorance of wrongdoing. I describe three cases in which I believe that Brink’s theory of normative competence cannot account for the significance of a variable that bears on culpability. In most of this paper I attempt to anticipate and reply to the various responses Brink might offer to my challenge. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.},
	language = {English},
	journal = {Criminal Law and Philosophy},
	author = {Husak, Douglas},
	year = {2023},
	note = {Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
Type: Article},
}

{"_id":"EpfftbxYPvXWGS3pZ","bibbaseid":"husak-isfairopportunityacomprehensivetheoryofresponsibility-2023","author_short":["Husak, D."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Is Fair Opportunity a Comprehensive Theory of Responsibility?","issn":"18719791","url":"https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85159431185&doi=10.1007%2fs11572-023-09676-6&partnerID=40&md5=6b46abb0988e5e2e609b3c4a7c675e82","doi":"10.1007/s11572-023-09676-6","abstract":"I challenge the adequacy of David Brink’s “master principle” of culpability. I allege that it fails to account for the moral relevance of ignorance of wrongdoing. I describe three cases in which I believe that Brink’s theory of normative competence cannot account for the significance of a variable that bears on culpability. In most of this paper I attempt to anticipate and reply to the various responses Brink might offer to my challenge. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.","language":"English","journal":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Husak"],"firstnames":["Douglas"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2023","note":"Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media B.V. Type: Article","bibtex":"@article{husak_is_2023,\n\ttitle = {Is {Fair} {Opportunity} a {Comprehensive} {Theory} of {Responsibility}?},\n\tissn = {18719791},\n\turl = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85159431185&doi=10.1007%2fs11572-023-09676-6&partnerID=40&md5=6b46abb0988e5e2e609b3c4a7c675e82},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11572-023-09676-6},\n\tabstract = {I challenge the adequacy of David Brink’s “master principle” of culpability. I allege that it fails to account for the moral relevance of ignorance of wrongdoing. I describe three cases in which I believe that Brink’s theory of normative competence cannot account for the significance of a variable that bears on culpability. In most of this paper I attempt to anticipate and reply to the various responses Brink might offer to my challenge. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.},\n\tlanguage = {English},\n\tjournal = {Criminal Law and Philosophy},\n\tauthor = {Husak, Douglas},\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tnote = {Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media B.V.\nType: Article},\n}\n\n\n\n","author_short":["Husak, D."],"key":"husak_is_2023","id":"husak_is_2023","bibbaseid":"husak-isfairopportunityacomprehensivetheoryofresponsibility-2023","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85159431185&doi=10.1007%2fs11572-023-09676-6&partnerID=40&md5=6b46abb0988e5e2e609b3c4a7c675e82"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/science_et_ignorance/1340424","dataSources":["zX4acseCDM6D58AW7"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["fair","opportunity","comprehensive","theory","responsibility","husak"],"title":"Is Fair Opportunity a Comprehensive Theory of Responsibility?","year":2023}